Ha! You learned that lesson quick, much quicker than people I know. Why vote for someone you know won't win?
Oh, and the term you're looking for to describe Ron Paul is libertarian. With a little "l". Even though he's a RINO and brings home more pork than a lot of other politicians.
Ha! You learned that lesson quick, much quicker than people I know. Why vote for someone you know won't win?
Oh, and the term you're looking for to describe Ron Paul is libertarian. With a little "l". Even though he's a RINO and brings home more pork than a lot of other politicians.
And I did indeed say that in my post.
Paulbots are crazy too, I do not support the guy.
Yeah, we know he's technically a Libertarian. But Ron Paul runs under the (R). Therefore, the ideological representation of him doesn't add up to the visual he is presenting.
Because the original repub party took a strange ideological turn in the late 60s. Remember it was Goldwater, a champion of the conservative movement, who said "You don't have to be straight to shoot straight."
hypoc8 - You're being a bit disingenuous. Nobody here is being "forced" to vote for anyone. What's happening is that some people realize that the most ideal candidate they see lingering on a third party ticket isn't going to win in the current broken electoral system we now have. Because of that, they are willing to settle for someone else between the two in the best position to win, who may not be 100% exactly what they wish for but is close enough to what their ideal candidate stands for.
True but when one "settles" they are "forced" to choose between one of the two major parties.
Most people realize that they can't always get everything they want, and in desperate times it's wise to take something instead of placing their hopes in someone who promises everything and has no chance of making any of that materialize. Many people, including myself, who initially voted for Hillary Clinton went to Obama because we all knew McCain/Palin wasn't going to adhere to our ideals and wishes. Beyond trying to feel morally superior to those who bite the bullet and choose between the (D) and the (R), anyone who voted for the Green party, Libertarian party, Prohibition party, Socialist party, or Independent party spun the political roulette wheel, bet it all on black and came up with double zeroes.
Trust me I don't believe half of what any politician says, you and I both know they are as full of shit as a Christmas turkey. I've only voted third party once so as far as feeling "morally superior" to those that always vote D or R I don't. All I'm trying to say is I think it is wrong to tell someone that they wasted their vote when they voted third party. If you want to vote for Charles Manson for President more power to you that's your right.
But alas, somehow this is supposed to be the fault of those who voted (D) or (R)? Sorry, I'm not buying it. Sounds to me as if those who backed the obvious long shots didn't come to the ballot box with a backup plan. They came to the dinner table wanting steak and wasn't willing to settle for chicken or pork instead, when ultimately all they want is to be fed.
Trust me I don't believe half of what any politician says, you and I both know they are as full of shit as a Christmas turkey.
I've only voted third party once so as far as feeling "morally superior" to those that always vote D or R I don't. All I'm trying to say is I think it is wrong to tell someone that they wasted their vote when they voted third party. If you want to vote for Charles Manson for President more power to you that's your right.
I'm not blaming anybody if the person I voted for doesn't win. Like I've said I vote for the person, not the party or because they have a better chance of winning.
I still want some poll, some proof Paul is not electable.
Hey --- Zombie! ... et all
Why should he deprive his constituents of the pork barrell buffett when that is the way things are done? He never votes for the bills as is. If the money is going to be spent anyways, he might as well get some of it for his constituents.
I'll do you two better; he's run for President twice and lost. And he didn't just lose... he was summarily dismissed as a non-starter. In 1988 he had more of a legitimate chance than he does now (thanks to the advent of the internet) since there wasn't this cloud of crazy surrounding him. You place entirely too much stock in polls if you think they tell you anything. I don't need a poll to tell me who is electable and who isn't. At the end of the day he had (has I guess if we really must speak about this like it's still relevant) as much of a chance as Donald Trump... maybe even less. If two failed bids for the Presidency aren't enough to convince you that he can't be elected I don't know what will. Third times a charm? Is that the thinking here?
it seems like a lot of people could switch from democrat to republican to vote for Paul. Will it happen? Time will tell.
I'm sorry... there isn't an emoticon with its mouth open wide enough in gut busting laughter to effectively express my reaction to this. Ron Paul's hopes and dreams for 1600 rest on people a.) suddenly becoming aware they're in line with his economic views in spite of all the other areas in which they disagree with him and democrats switching parties to vote Republican because of him?
This is seriously like something divined from a Magic 8 Ball. I don't need time to tell me neither of those things are ever going to happen any more than I need time to tell me Nirvana and Sublime aren't ever gettin' back together for a reunion tour.
JSZ
We do not know if it will happen,
Paul has already made his mark as more and more candidates are sounding a bit more in line with Paul's views (allbeit small and distorted).
Again, time will tell, but there are democrats who are in line with Paul's bring the troops
home and with his economic views.
And there is an ever-growing group upset at Obama.
Most people on this board take multiple views into account to choose a candidate, but much of the American public choose a candidate on one or two issues. With the economy (and as related, cost of war) being the biggest issue this time around, Paul's views resonate. It tends not to happen that people will change and or declare a different party for primarys, but Paul has a large independent base and is getting a small vocal democratic base.
YOUR oppinion is that he was a crackpot. My oppinion is that though I didn't like his ideas enough to have voted for him instead of Clinton had I been old enough, all of his ideas had a basis in reality. Your crackpot is another man's radical. America was built by radicals; there should always be room for them here. Ross Perot, like him or not, and Ron Paul (who is even more insane) predicted something like our current economic predicaments years ago, and proposed plans to prevent a crisis. I'm with you, they are crazy, but presidents cannot get things done by themselves. They are not islands. And if you can just dismiss Ross Perot's success with the idea that he was "a crack pot" you clearly don't know much about him, or understand my point.Ross Perot was a crack pot. Just because a bunch of people decided they liked his crack pot ideas and he qualified for federal funding means nothing, except he could have gotten free money from us taxpayers if he had jumped on the bandwagon again.
As for Teddy Roosevelt, he was a member of the Progressive party AFTER he had already been President, as a Republican.
YOUR oppinion is that he was a crackpot. My oppinion is that though I didn't like his ideas enough to have voted for him instead of Clinton had I been old enough, all of his ideas had a basis in reality. Your crackpot is another man's radical. America was built by radicals; there should always be room for them here. Ross Perot, like him or not, and Ron Paul (who is even more insane) predicted something like our current economic predicaments years ago, and proposed plans to prevent a crisis. I'm with you, they are crazy, but presidents cannot get things done by themselves. They are not islands. And if you can just dismiss Ross Perot's success with the idea that he was "a crack pot" you clearly don't know much about him, or understand my point.
My point was not about Ross Perot. My point was about you, and what you wrote. You think voting for independents is purely for protest. That is ignorant. Voting for independents is a part of why the Boston Tea Party has so many of its members in Congress, why Roosevelt got into the White House a third time in the first place, and the only way to help a candidate you support get enough votes to launch a better-funded campaign in the future. It is, in more cases than you would probably care to acknowledge, NOT a tantrum-inspired protest. It IS (as you insist it is not) an act of faith. A vote for the lesser of two evils, with zero consideration for unpopular alternatives) is possibly more of a waste than a true vote of confidence in "a crack pot" who isn't likely to win.
Ross Perot did make another bid.
Roosevelt ran as a third party candidate and won. It doesn't matter that he was once on the Republican ticket. He wasn't the incumbent, and though he was popular with the public, he had no republican support (other than what he got from those who just didn't like Taft). He started a party, went to primaries and caucuses, campaigned hard, said (and did) a lot of radical, crackpot shit, and won. I think you drink too much Republicrat Kool-Aid.