Galt's Gulch

Bursting Your Bush Bubble

Posted by WesleyMooch 12 years, 2 months ago to History
26 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

I'm voting for Gary Johnson because he represents real change and a real chance for a third party run in 2016. He needs our vote for the 5% in 2012 necessary to receive matching funds for 2016 that will, for one, ensure Johnson is in the 2016 debates.

Bush helped run this country far deeper into debt than all his predecessors combined, and Obama merely carried forward a mathematical trend. Things are only going to get worse under Romney.

You refused the good sense and leadership of Ron Paul, you got Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber, opposed only by Ron Paul Lite (Gary Johnson -- who, unfortunately, is too damned accomodating to the eternal child, the American voter).

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by $ jmlesniewski 12 years, 2 months ago
    The only way to affect change in the two party system is gradual. Make it so the debate is between small government and smaller government not between big government and not-as-big government. The only way to make that proper debate happen is to consistently vote for candidates who advocate the smaller government and have a chance of winning.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 12 years, 2 months ago
      Hello jmlesniewski,
      I believe you are correct. We didn’t get this behemoth overnight and we aren’t likely to dismantle it swiftly either. I wish we were at the point where I could vote third party again. There was a point early in the primary season when I entertained the notion (flight of fancy) that perhaps the people and media were ready… In addition to small government candidates we need to support media outlets that support small government third party candidates. Otherwise the incurably ignorant masses will continue to follow the talking heads on their default TV channel straight into the voting booths without critical consideration or reservation…
      Regards,
      O.A.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jmlesniewski 12 years, 2 months ago
        I'd love to vote third party, but I was turned off by a third party debate I went to years ago. Every third party candidate, no matter if they were for big or small government, held the same anti-business perspective.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by Shrugger 12 years, 1 month ago
    Thank You WM - I was beginning to think I was alone here. Those of you who think a vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama are under the mistaken belief that the voter would have otherwise voted for Romney. In my case, at least, my alternative is either NOT to vote for president at all, or vote for Johnson, who, of all the available candidates, most closely reflects my values.

    I WILL NOT cast my vote for someone I consider EVIL... no matter how much more evil his opponent might be.

    If you believe Romney really reflects your values, vote for him. If he does NOT reflect your values - voting for him is a refutation of your beliefs.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by LetsShrug 12 years, 1 month ago
      We have different goals. Mine is to get Obama (the EVIL one) the hell out. Yours is to cast a vote that you believe "counts more than mine". I don't think Romney is the lesser of two evils, I don't think he's perfect, but I don't think he's "EVIL". (I like Johnson, but I don't think he's perfect either). Here's my question. Can you explain why you say Romney is "evil". Previously someone said Romney was a liar and a couple of us asked what he's lied about specifically and we never got an answer. So I'm seriously looking for an answer here.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by Shrugger 12 years, 1 month ago
        Let me try to be clear here, though time and space restrictions make that difficult.

        I consider the initiation of the use of force evil.

        I believe when a government leader endorses the initiation of the use of force by government against its people that person is evil.

        I consider a government "mandate" that forces citizens to purchase something against their will the initiation of the use of force.

        You can dress up RomneyCare all you want... you can try to point out its benefits... you can attampt to show me how much worse the alternative might have been... in the final analysis, Mr. Romney endorsed the use of government mandate to force those who lived within his dominion to purchase something against their will.

        You may not consider that evil... I do.

        While I applaud your goal to get Obama "the hell out" I don't agree with the way you are going about it.

        You misunderstand MY goal. In the post you are referencing, I did not state it was my GOAL to cast a vote that counted more than yours... I stated it as a fact... not a goal... and I stand by that statement.

        I believe you are sincere in asking me this question. We simply have a different set of values. If you can show me where I am wrong in my thinking I will reevaluate my conclusion.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by LetsShrug 12 years, 1 month ago
          Just so I'm sure about what you've said....this is all about RomneyCare? (Fair enough if it is, I just want to make sure that that's the sole reason behind him being 'evil'.) (Also, is there ANOTHER way to "go about" getting Obama "the hell out" besides voting him out?")
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by Shrugger 12 years, 1 month ago
            When I learned about RomneyCare I immediately crossed Mr. Romney off my list of possible "GoodGuys" and have looked no further at him. Perhaps RomneyCare was his only sin. Perhaps he is otherwise a really "NiceGuy"... none of that matteres to me.

            If he refuted his previous position and provided convincing explanations for his turnaround (the pivotpoint) I might reevaluate my opinion of him, but from what I have seen, he has only tried to paint his position with justifications.

            As for there being another way to go about getting Obama out, I see that as a short-term goal that will ultimately not solve our long-term problem.

            We are suffering from a cancer in this country... a widespread acceptance in collectivism, statism and altruism. Obama is merely one large lump of the cancer pervading our body-politic. Cutting out that lump will not save the patient.

            Instead of using your considerable time and talents in a short-term goal, I would urge you to focus on the long-range goal of helping our friends and neighbors learn the truth.

            I do not agree with EVERY facet of the current Libertarian Party's Platform... but NOTHING in that platform is what I could deem evil. I want my friends and neighbors to look... of their own accord... at the beliefs of the libertarian MOVEMENT. In doing so, many will discover for the first time in their lives that there is an alternative they could endorse.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by LetsShrug 12 years, 1 month ago
              I don't disagree with you in the sense that I too was turned off by the RomneyCare thing and didn't think any more about him (during the last election), but his one saving grace, referring to Romneycare (and I know this isn't that strong of an argument), a State mandate is nowhere near as huge as a Fed mandate. I do think he's seen the error in his ways (by reaching across the aisle), but he's walking a tight rope and dealing with ignorant Americans who are uneducated politically. Other than RomneyCare I can't find anything else "wrong" with him on a grand scale. I wish to ensure that there will be another election and a slower boat ride to the cliff than sure demise by doing anything that would keep Obama in power. HE is the REAL danger. (And I've lived through the Perot effect and don't care to relive that.)
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              -
            • Posted by WesleyMooch 12 years, 1 month ago
              There's a couple of widespread misconceptions I want to address here:

              1) Johnson draws votes from Romney. Wrong. Republicans and Democrats supply roughly equal numbers of votes to Johnson. Myth busted.

              2) A vote for Johnson is a wasted vote. Untrue. If he can secure 5% of the popular vote, the Libertarian Party wins matching funds for 2016. This doesn't guarantee great success in 2016, but it's a helluva lot better than letting the two-party tyranny go unchallenged time after time after time.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                -
              • Posted by LetsShrug 12 years, 1 month ago
                Do you really think that anybody who might vote for Obama would consider voting for Johnson? The way I see it, it's only possible Romney voters that might sway to Johnson. Not everybody sees it like you do (hating Romney so much that you just wouldn't vote at all...so it IS taking votes from Romney, which is equal to giving Obama a stronger chance to win.) 5% is enough to make Obama win. And that's the last I'll argue about this.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo