Who will win the 2012 presidentail election part 2?

• justincredible

  

  WebFire;1308433 wrote:Is IDGAF the phrase of the day?

  Yes, and if you've got a problem with it IDGAF.
• bigdaddy2003

  

  I received a call from a Romney volunteer asking when I planned to vote. That's the only question he asked.
• HitsRus

  

  As I have said before, the best chance for enacting change is thru an existing party. In just four short years, the Tea Party has already managed to push the Republican Party to a more conservative, value the Constitution stance. The Liberatraians have been spinning their wheels forever( there is that definition of insanity again)....and nothing is ever going to change for them unless they get allies and build coalitions. Their ideas are good, and ones that a lot of people could identify with...but they need to build on the numbers that Ron Paul got, and work within the party as much as possible. If they do that, then the Republican Party will start supporting their candidates on a grassroots level, and real change can occur as people who like their ideas and see them as electable will start voting for them.
• BoatShoes

  HitsRus;1308558 wrote:As I have said before, the best chance for enacting change is thru an existing party. In just four short years, the Tea Party has already managed to push the Republican Party to a more conservative, value the Constitution stance. The Liberatraians have been spinning their wheels forever( there is that definition of insanity again)....and nothing is ever going to change for them unless they get allies and build coalitions. Their ideas are good, and ones that a lot of people could identify with...but they need to build on the numbers that Ron Paul got, and work within the party as much as possible. If they do that, then the Republican Party will start supporting their candidates on a grassroots level, and real change can occur as people who like their ideas and see them as electable will start voting for them.

  I might agree with you but in my opinion the general libertarian consensus on foreign policy is pretty far gone from either of the two major parties. And, that isse is tantamount to a fundamental moral issue for most of those folks that I've interacted with. I am not a libertarian but if I'm pretty convinced a libertarian insurgency is the only real way to bring a non-interventionist foreign policy view to the fore front.
  
  I remember seeing Ron Paul say during the primaries something along the lines of "Republicans say to me, 'If you'd just change your views on foreign policy you'd get a lot of support'" but that is a non-starter it appears to me.
• gut

  HitsRus;1308558 wrote:As I have said before, the best chance for enacting change is thru an existing party.

  the POTUS is a very important part, but I suspect these people making the grand protest by voting 3rd party aren't writing in people for Congress, which makes it kind of a really half-assed protest vote.
• WebFire

  I think this girl speaks for us all.
  
  [video=youtube;OjrthOPLAKM][/video]
• Heretic

  

  WebFire;1309204 wrote:I think this girl speaks for us all.
  
  [video=youtube;OjrthOPLAKM][/video]

  This is correct. I'll be happy after next Tuesday, when at least the social retardation will be kept to a combination of gloating and sour grapes, which is at least more manageable than what we have now.
• Ty Webb

  

  bigdaddy2003;1308535 wrote:I received a call from a Romney volunteer asking when I planned to vote. That's the only question he asked.

  That's somewhat odd...they didn't even ask if you we're supporting him?
• BGFalcons82

  

  justincredible;1308172 wrote:I think Obama will win. The only thing I really care about is Gary Johnson getting 5% of the vote. If he does that, success.

  Then what?
• BGFalcons82

  

  CenterBHSFan;1308241 wrote:We need another choice, such as "Who loses?" - "We do!"

  Some local elections include, "None of the Above" in their list of choices. Wonder how that would translate on a national election? If it did, what would happen when "None of the above" wins...would it preclude the previous candidates from running a second time?
  
  On another level, when people clamor for better candidates, what makes us think anyone else wants the job? Being President has to be the hardest job on the planet. Would we want someone defending our country that really doesn't want to be there or isn't prepared for the challenges...but we elected them because the guys that wanted the job were "scum-suckers"?
• gut

  BGFalcons82;1309269 wrote:Then what?

  Spend the next 4 years saying "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for Obama"?
• sleeper

  

  BGFalcons82;1309269 wrote:Then what?

  [video=youtube_share;_XhOKIHGH7Q][/video]
• believer

  

  gut;1309273 wrote:Spend the next 4 years saying "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for Obama"?

  precisely
  
  Nice and cozy in their smug arrogance while Barry continues to run amok. But OK....:rolleyes:
• justincredible

  

  QQ more.
• BGFalcons82

  

  justincredible;1309297 wrote:QQ more.

  That's it? That's your answer to what happens if Johnson gets 5%?
  
  I'm curious because Jon Anderson and the Perotistas got a substantial vote total, but their crusades ultimately failed. Although some would argue the "Tea Party" has roots in Perot teachings. Oh wait...the Tea Party isn't a political party.
• justincredible

  

  BGFalcons82;1309303 wrote:That's it? That's your answer to what happens if Johnson gets 5%?
  
  I'm curious because Jon Anderson and the Perotistas got a substantial vote total, but their crusades ultimately failed. Although some would argue the "Tea Party" has roots in Perot teachings. Oh wait...the Tea Party isn't a political party.

  No, that was my response to the guys whining.
  
  My response to "then what?" is I don't know. But getting the 5% gives them easier ballot access in 2016 and a piece of the public election funding pie. Will it make a difference? I have no clue. But I'm certainly not going to give up just because it hasn't worked in the past. That's some defeatist bullshit.
• I Wear Pants

  Also bullshit is voting for anyone who you don't feel is the best candidate because of your perception of their likelihood to win. Vote for who you think is best regardless of what you think the odds are otherwise you're simply part of the problem.
• justincredible

  

  I Wear Pants;1309406 wrote:Also bullshit is voting for anyone who you don't feel is the best candidate because of your perception of their likelihood to win. Vote for who you think is best regardless of what you think the odds are otherwise you're simply part of the problem.

  Exactly. The election isn't a horse race, I'm not trying to pick a winner. I'm voting for the candidate who aligns with my views the most. I'm so fucking sorry that happens to be Gary Johnson and not your boy Mitt. Deal with it.
  
  I'm also not the kind of guy to say "don't blame me I didn't vote for ..."
• Con_Alma

  justincredible;1309420 wrote:Exactly. The election isn't a horse race, I'm not trying to pick a winner. I'm voting for the candidate who aligns with my views the most. ...

  Me too. I'm writing in Santorum!
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1309433 wrote:Me too. I'm writing in Santorum!

  God help us.
• I Wear Pants

  Con_Alma;1309433 wrote:Me too. I'm writing in Santorum!

  I may have just vomited.
• BGFalcons82

  

  I Wear Pants;1309406 wrote:Also bullshit is voting for anyone who you don't feel is the best candidate because of your perception of their likelihood to win. Vote for who you think is best regardless of what you think the odds are otherwise you're simply part of the problem.

  Browns' fans vote for the Browns each and every year because they think their team is the best, despite the odds. Are they smart, stupid, "part of a problem" or misguided? One could argue they are clueless and make a strong case.
  
  My Q to justin, and all the other Ronulans, is an easy one to ask, but you guys can't easily answer it. Libertarians have been around for decades. Dr. Paul's crusade, while admirable, isn't the maiden voyage for 3rd party candidates. John Anderson got over 6% of the vote and Perot got over 10%, but their crusades and their followers didn't have any momentum, any money, no national backing, and 2 admirable foes, not just 1. It's a mountain that you better have a plan to attack or you will follow Mssrs. Anderson and Perot into obscurity. The Pauliban, as much as you wish it were so, is not unique to the national scene and will die just as those before it have unless they meet their problems head on.
  
  Your inflexibility is the anchor that holds you back. Your "purity" (no ideas but Ron's are acceptable) is what's keeping others from joining your side. Libertarians have 2 killer policies that won't allow expansion of their party: Drugs should be legal and hiding from the world stage.
  
  While I'll agree the "War on Drugs" is a loser, a large majority of Americans don't want heroin, crack, and meth available at the 5 and dime on the corner. These high-powered drugs aren't the equal of alcohol and the tireless rantings that they should be legal as long as no one else is affected is ignorant to the overall effect of these deadly drugs. As long as you keep beating the love for dangerous narcotics, you won't get much past your 5% threshold. Equally, withdrawing from the world, failing to protect allies, failing to keep shipping lanes safe, and deciding that world harmony is for anyone not named America are also opposed by a majority of Americans. There is middle ground, but the rigidity of Libertarians is keeping them from expanding their party's base and becoming a real player in politics. For example, I would suggest legalizing pot and no others as a starting point.
  
  I agree with the Ronulan's view of limited government and how our economy should function. I would venture to guess a large majority of the populace is in agreement as far as these issues go. If the fringe elements of "drugs are great" and "we're only protecting American soil" planks were compromised, then I could see Libertarians becoming a very viable alternative. Until then, the rigidity of their views will forever limit their expansion.
• justincredible

  

  Well, I'm pretty sure the only drug that Johnson has advocated legalizing, at least initially, is marijuana. Personally, I think they should all be legal but I understand that you have to start small. I am 100% fine with only legalizing pot initially. It's a start.
• hasbeen

  

  Maybe I don't read enough, but I only hear pot being compared to alcohol. Not the hard drugs.
• WebFire

  Can't say I agree about all drugs being legal.