Elect Hillary, Vote for Ron Paul

I found this poem on a poetry thread; it looked like it had been pasted in from somewhere else. I have no idea who wrote it, but he/she brings up an interesting point:

This’ll make you mad
At least I think
But the guy you love
Will make things stink!

In this election
None of the candidates are good
Except one, that’s all
Who every freedom lover loves
And that’s Ron Paul

But there’s something amiss
That most everyone has missed
Paul will never get the nomination
His supporters will be pissed

So he’ll run on his own
He’ll be the independent
He’ll take away the votes
From the Republican contender

So what! You say
How can that hurt
Those Republican candidates
Are just a bunch of jerks

But votes will get split
Like the Ross Perot hit
On old Bush senior
Which surprised the old hillbilly
And ushered in Slick Willy

The Republicans will lose the election
And the Democrats will win her
Ron Paul will also lose
And Hillary/Obama will take power

I know this sounds horrible
I know this seems silly
But a vote for Ron Paul
Is really a vote for Hillary!​

 

doesn't make sense.... sorry, explain?

 

By splitting the vote, as Ross Perot did, Ron Paul will guarantee the election of the Democrat candidate.

Androgynous

 

"splitting the vote"? how, why? is that legal? Explain...
Is it like, the candidate that didn't win's votes go to everyone else?

 

Sure it's legal.

When two candidates from the same (or similar) party vie for the same vote, that's called a "split." One candidate siphons off votes, weakening the position of the other. The result is that the real opposition candidate wins because of higher numbers.

Ross Perot did it to George the 1st, resulting in Bill Clinton winning the election. Perot wasn't a republican, he ran as a 3rd party candidate, and targeted the same conservative voters.

This sort of thing goes on, on the local level, in many places. In fact, it is not uncommon for an opposition candidate to quietly fund a vote splitter. It wouldn't surprise me if many of the anonymous cash contributions Ron Paul receives actually come from democrats.

Do you understand all this now? I hope so.

Androgynous

 

I am sick of this argument. It implies that Hillary would be worse than any of the other Republican candidates. Maybe I, along with many other voters, see little difference in the other candidates and would rather not vote for any of them. Maybe people actually liked Ross Perot and would not have voted otherwise or maybe they would have voted Democrat. To blame one's failure on another is silly. If Bush wanted to win he should have been more appealing to more people. His loss was his fault. If I don't vote for Ron Paul I sure as hell won't be voting for any of the other Republican candidates.

 

thank you, yes, I understand it, though it seems like bullshit.

 

If it keeps the Republicans out of office-Go Ron Paul!

 

I have to agree; if it keeps the republicans away, its better than nothing. While I consider myself and Independent Libertarian, I would much rather have a democrat in office than a republican.

 

Personally, if Paul does not get the nomination I don't see any of the other Republicans standing a chance of winning the election, whether Paul runs as independent (or with any other party) or not. Though he still has said he has no plans to do so at this time.

 

I don't think he'll run as an independent. He has too much invested with the Bush mob. The Party had him run just for show, so that that Republicans could claim to tolerate dissent.

If he didn't support the Bush thugs, he would have left the party long ago.

There are no good Republicans. Not one. Well, not one good living one.

 

i think this point of view is a crock of shite, ron paul is a valid canidate, he's not doing it as some sort of joke like the media presents it as
if you vote for ron paul your voting for ron paul
if you voted for nader in 2004 you voted for nader
voting for 3rd party canidates is not throwing you vote away although now its viewed as a two party system, that can change, people notice that in washington there was 21.6% for ron paul, 23.5% for huckabee and 25.9 % for mccain and that seems to be pretty fucking close
you dont have to vote for what you think is the lesser evil ,i think its your duty to vote for who you think will do a decent job

 

I think you're paranoid and spend too much time looking at parties vs the person.

 

Acually I think he'd be more likely to split the vote for the Dems, thus letting a REP. in. regardless, any of the dems are better then "1,000 year war" McCain

 

I think you're paranoid and spend too much time looking at parties vs the person.

The Nazis produced some good, decent, human beings as well. But they still put their party first, and their personal ethics aside.

(No, I'm not comparing Bush and Hitler. We know how many people Hitler killed.)

 

After what happened in 2000, I doubt any third party candidate will attract many votes away from the Democratic nominee.

 

So you're saying the Democrats haven't rolled over for Bush? That they don't support totalitarian legislation such as the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act? That they're not funded by the same multinational corporations? That they're not members of the establishment and NGOs such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)?

Perhaps you can tell me how the two parties are any different. I know you're severely brainwashed, but at least give it your best.

If you can tell me how turncoats like Hillary and Nancy Pelosi are any different than Turncoat-General George W. Bush, it would be greatly appreciated. I might learn something.

Until then, keep on drinking your left-wing kool-aid and spouting the same mindless, rehashed rhetoric. You're no better than the Republicans you attack.

 

Bush made the oil companies rich.
Obama or Clinton will make the HMO's rich, but the kids will get better health care.

(Yes, this is a broadbrush lacking details.)

Its not that the Dems are good, or even better, but the Repubs are worse.

 

Which is why I propose that voting for the lesser evil is still making your vote count.

 

So you're saying the Democrats haven't rolled over for Bush?

As you certainly know already (so I have no idea why you're asking), there aren't enough Democrats in the Senate to do Jack. Or did you not know that the House cannot pass legislation without the Senate and President?

keep on drinking your left-wing kool-aid

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/howourlawsaremade.pdf

Get back to us when you've read the above. Oh wait, never mind, you can't trust it, the nation's librarians are part of the vast leftwing conspiracy too, right?