PhuturePriest Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Freedom' timestamp='1351034115' post='2496587'] Do you remember what happened when Ross Perot was running? He took votes away from the Republicans & the Democrat won. He ran to split the vote & it worked. Ross Perot was never to be heard of again. Can you convince the rest of America to vote for a third party? It's a complete waste of a vote because either the DemocRAT or the Republican will win the Presidency. [/quote] People voted for their conscience, not in the name of two-party dominance. This was a good thing. Yes, Bill Clinton won, but if we had stayed on that track we would have third-party candidates winning the presidency. Instead people got all wussified and decided to continue plaguing American politics with a two-party system. If we don't fight on, bite the bullet and take some blows, we will NEVER attain a better system. You have to fight in life, and people are too cozy drinking their Kool-Aid. Edited October 23, 2012 by FuturePriest387 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 (edited) I agree with dUSt here. And if you're really serious about a third-party run, you need to start seriously organizing and building a serious constituency around that candidate and party well in advance (preferably years before the election.) Hasty eleventh-hour write-in campaigns (especially if spread among several different candidates) will at very most succeed only in handing Dear Leader four more years. Edited October 23, 2012 by Socrates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Socrates, I owe you a beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Big deal. Aloysius offered me a beer in his emoticon, and he's in Belgium right now. Belgian beer is the best, apparently. Your offering of weak American beer is practically nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351030847' post='2496528'] so if anyone even remotely read any part of my post they should clearly understand that not voting for Romney doesn't mean voting for Obama. Who's going to read it like "Romney's just like Obama, therefore I should vote for Obama!"... le sigh, that'd be quite the uninformed jackinape. [/quote] 3/4 of my family are "uninformed jackinapes". They are on the fence, and desperately searching for any loophole in their Catholic conscience to vote for Obama. Your post gives them one. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r2Dtoo Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 [quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351035535' post='2496600'] 3/4 of my family are "uninformed jackinapes". They are on the fence, and desperately searching for any loophole in their Catholic conscience to vote for Obama. Your post gives them one. Thanks. [/quote] White guilt is an incredibly insane force. Any ideas on where it comes from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted October 23, 2012 Author Share Posted October 23, 2012 [quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1351035010' post='2496594'] I agree with dUSt here. And if you're really serious about a third-party run, you need to start seriously organizing and building a serious constituency around that candidate and party well in advance (preferably years before the election.) Hasty eleventh-hour write-in campaigns (especially if spread among several different candidates) will at very most succeed only in handing Dear Leader four more years. [/quote] sigh... well there are a couple third party runs that aren't hasty by any means, the Libertarian, Constitution, Green, and Justice parties are the best organized of them. I'm not advocating a winning strategy to get some guy into office. the double effect of the people I am targeting voting for someone other than Romney will likely be four more years of Obama... compared to Eight years of Romney dominating both the country and the tool that is most effective in opposition to people like Robomney, it's actually preferable. you still don't understand that it doesn't matter if Barack Obama or Mitt Romney win. Either one is equally bad, equally repugnant as a candidate, and equally undeserving of our support. Mitt Romney never owned my vote to begin with, so when I don't vote for him I have not taken away a vote from Mitt Romney. he doesn't deserve any of our votes just for having an (R) after his name. he has to earn them. Yes, this action does not consist of lending your support to the winner. And that is perfectly fine. You will not win if you vote third party or write someone in this time around. Sad but true. That's not what it's about; it's about not supporting either of the two "main" candidates when you feel that both of those candidates do not deserve your support. It doesn't cut it to vote for Romney and plan for a successful third party run later; the successful third party run can only happen after many election cycles of people waking up and refusing to vote for the Romneys and Obamas of the political world. Personally I'm not looking towards a third party run in the future. I'm looking forward to duking it out in the GOP again. and again and again until we can get it right. And when they put up goofballs that do not deserve my support and are in no substantial way better than the democratic candidate, I will not vote for those goofballs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted October 23, 2012 Author Share Posted October 23, 2012 [quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351035535' post='2496600'] 3/4 of my family are "uninformed jackinapes". They are on the fence, and desperately searching for any loophole in their Catholic conscience to vote for Obama. Your post gives them one. Thanks. [/quote] glad I could help them out, I suppose. it'll be too bad if they vote for Obama, that's also a terrible vote; but I'm glad to hear if they decide not to vote for Romney! that's good news; their justifications for voting for Obama will be similar to the justifications people use to vote for Romney, and I'll try not to begrudge either side for being a willing pawn of those two sides. Anyone who votes for Obama because they want pro-choice policies in the US, I'll begrudge them of that vote and say that was not an acceptable thing to do from a Catholic POV; but anyone who votes for Obama out of some idea of lesser-of-two-evils, well that's their prerogative same as anyone who votes for Romney out of some idea of a lesser-of-two-evils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted October 23, 2012 Author Share Posted October 23, 2012 anyway I still don't see how "Don't vote for Romney because he's too much like Obama" turns into "vote for Obama"; just reverse the logic of my argument man; "Hey guys, don't vote for Obama because he's too much like Romney!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 [quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351035365' post='2496597'] Socrates, I owe you a beer. [/quote] I'll take a Shiner Bock, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I agree with dUSt and Socrates. Where's my beer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 [quote name='homeschoolmom' timestamp='1351037680' post='2496621'] I agree with dUSt and Socrates. Where's my beer? [/quote] I will send you a packet of powdered beer to add to water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 [quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1351032893' post='2496568'] I am not throwing up my hands and giving up. I am actually fighting for real change this time instead of the status quo. Romney won't do anything substantial to stop abortion because he is the lesser evil and gets people like you to vote for him. There is a GOP campaign headquarters near where I am, and I have it on good information that the GOP will specifically not do anything substantial on abortion because it gets them the "pro-life" vote. Keep throwing your vote away to the federal GOP. When was the last time at the federal level was there a meaningful abortion restriction? Why is Planned Parenthood still being funded despite the GOP controlling everything in 2002-2004 or so? See I would say the same thing back. Why vote for what is very likely going to be the status quo? Explain to me what [b]meaningful [/b]restrictions on abortion the GOP has done in the past 10 years. What has the GOP done on abortion to warrant belief that the party is interested in ending abortion? [/quote]What has the Democratic Party done to the efforts to pass the PBAB since the 70's? What has the Republican Party done? What was the Party affiliation if the President who vetoed it? What was the Party affiliation of thePresudent who signed it? To counter your argument that it was ineffectual, what is the majority public opinion regarding legal abortion? After you Google the answer, explain to me how it is politically possible for a President to change the law for something that has been declared Constitutionally legal and is acceptable to the majority of the populace? Now consider the President is going to be Obama or Romney. There is no chance anyone else is going to be President. Obama's party is the Democrats who heavily support abortion on demand and consider it something the Federal Government should pay for it. Google the difference between the two parties and their support for abortion. The only other possible outcome is Romney who will be the head of the Republican Party. Which party do you think would be responsive to Senators and Congressmen that may be responsive to their constituents that are calling for restricting Government paying for a oration or nominating conservative SC Justices? Was Ron Paul part of the Democratic Convention or the Republican Convention? Why do you think that was? The President in this election will be from one if those two parties There is a difference between what the two parties have done and what their stated goals are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle_eye222001 Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 [quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1351035010' post='2496594'] I agree with dUSt here. And if you're really serious about a third-party run, you need to start seriously organizing and building a serious constituency around that candidate and party well in advance (preferably years before the election.) Hasty eleventh-hour write-in campaigns (especially if spread among several different candidates) will at very most succeed only in handing Dear Leader four more years. [/quote] It's hard to win when the GOP cheats you at the convention, intimidates your electoral voters, blatantly lies about the rules, and then illegally changes the rules to make it harder for grass roots efforts. [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351036050' post='2496606'] ... the successful third party run can only happen after many election cycles of people waking up and refusing to vote for the Romneys and Obamas of the political world. ... I'm looking forward to duking it out in the GOP again. and again and again until we can get it right. And when they put up goofballs that do not deserve my support and are in no substantial way better than the democratic candidate, I will not vote for those goofballs. [/quote] Amen. [quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1351042620' post='2496658'] What has the Democratic Party done to the efforts to pass the PBAB since the 70's? What has the Republican Party done? What was the Party affiliation if the President who vetoed it? What was the Party affiliation of thePresudent who signed it? To counter your argument that it was ineffectual, what is the majority public opinion regarding legal abortion? After you Google the answer, explain to me how it is politically possible for a President to change the law for something that has been declared Constitutionally legal and is acceptable to the majority of the populace? Now consider the President is going to be Obama or Romney. There is no chance anyone else is going to be President. Obama's party is the Democrats who heavily support abortion on demand and consider it something the Federal Government should pay for it. Google the difference between the two parties and their support for abortion. The only other possible outcome is Romney who will be the head of the Republican Party. Which party do you think would be responsive to Senators and Congressmen that may be responsive to their constituents that are calling for restricting Government paying for a oration or nominating conservative SC Justices? Was Ron Paul part of the Democratic Convention or the Republican Convention? Why do you think that was? The President in this election will be from one if those two parties There is a difference between what the two parties have done and what their stated goals are. [/quote] Romney will appoint pro-choice justices that believe in abortion is okay if it affects the health of the mother. This is not a restriction on abortion....this is a loophole that allows abortion for virtually any pregnant woman. PBAB had virtually no effect and was a political show on stopping abortion. The GOP could have stopped funding Planned Parenthood. To keep funding them is to promote abortion. The GOP could have added significant limits on abortion. They haven't. They instead pass bills that pretend to stop abortion. The GOP may be responsive....but I'm not holding my breath given their history. And it would be foolish to put hope that they will listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 [quote] The GOP may be responsive....but I'm not holding my breath given their history. And it would be foolish to put hope that they will listen. [/quote]So a spiteful scorched warehouse policy, stomping home with the ball is your plan? So it didn't work out completely for Paul this year. Buck up and get over your spite and disappointment. How many State politicians may have similar views and are bolstered by the political machine he's created. Is it all about the manPaul or is it about the ideas and plans he proposed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts