U.S Presidential Race: Who are you backing and why?
#2
Posted 24 September 2007 - 02:12 AM
Official Ron Paul website
Ron Paul at Wikipedia
Libertarian Party at Wikipedia
Frequently asked questions about the Libertarian Party
This post has been edited by Cobnat: 24 September 2007 - 02:20 AM
Great Quotes Of The 21st Century/Cobnat gets serious!
Ron Paul At AntiWar.com/A Writing Guild For The Clinically Retarded/Death By Quotes/AntiWar/Early Justin Raimondo articles/In Defense Of Yoshiro Mori By Justin Raimondo/Vox Popoli
Evil Happens/This Is A Knife!/Minorities, too!/
AYBABTU/Che Guevara Action Figure!/Strange Humour
#3
Posted 24 September 2007 - 04:12 AM
#4
Posted 24 September 2007 - 05:02 AM
Its better to throw your vote away (even though I believe that a vote not cast is a vote wasted) then voting for a party because it is ‘less’ evil/corrupt/imperialistic then the current party. Look at the history of the two main parties in the U.S, there is no difference between their actions internally or externally! The two party system is at best a one party system, we must fight it! Who cares if your votes are wasted!? At least they are not wasted on electing another Republican or Democrat!
Great Quotes Of The 21st Century/Cobnat gets serious!
Ron Paul At AntiWar.com/A Writing Guild For The Clinically Retarded/Death By Quotes/AntiWar/Early Justin Raimondo articles/In Defense Of Yoshiro Mori By Justin Raimondo/Vox Popoli
Evil Happens/This Is A Knife!/Minorities, too!/
AYBABTU/Che Guevara Action Figure!/Strange Humour
#5
Posted 24 September 2007 - 07:52 AM
Ron Paul is so far left, he's on the right.
Anyway, I'd either support Barack Obama or Mitt Romney; Obama because he's not a flaming wacko like Hillary Clinton, and Romney because Fred Thompson doesn't seem to care much.
#6
Posted 24 September 2007 - 11:40 AM
#8
Posted 24 September 2007 - 12:15 PM
I honestly don't like anyone that's running very well, except Obama seems okay but let's face it, there's no way he's going to win. Neither will Clinton. Unfortunately, it seems so far like Romney's spit-shined bullshit is going to win enough people over to win this election and put yet another Republican power-mongering idiot in office. (At least I think he's smarter than Bush... But with his agenda, I don't think that's a good thing.)
#9
Posted 24 September 2007 - 01:19 PM
Ron Paul is so far left, he's on the right.
If your not going to be series then please smeg off.
Obama is an inexperienced Clinton lackey and Romney is… well Spoons made my case. Bond, think for a second, do you really want the next President to send American soldiers into harms way? All Presidential hopefuls have expressed that they will be sending troops somewhere in the world (usually to reinforce troops already based somewhere) and the only Presidential candidate who is against this is Ron Paul. Consider this; the Iraq war has costed Americans around 80-100 billion dollars a year and the Kosovo war costed Americans around 90 billion for just 3 months! If America keeps making war then the taxes in your country will just keep getting higher and higher, if you have no moral obligation then at least think of your wallet.
Great Quotes Of The 21st Century/Cobnat gets serious!
Ron Paul At AntiWar.com/A Writing Guild For The Clinically Retarded/Death By Quotes/AntiWar/Early Justin Raimondo articles/In Defense Of Yoshiro Mori By Justin Raimondo/Vox Popoli
Evil Happens/This Is A Knife!/Minorities, too!/
AYBABTU/Che Guevara Action Figure!/Strange Humour
#10
Posted 24 September 2007 - 02:18 PM
I don't see how voting for someone with no chance of winning isn't the same as wasting a vote. I know all the people who voted for Nader a while back figured they were making siome big statement, but since that's pretty much forgotten and Nader might as well be dead for all the press he's getting, they might have been just as successful with their "statement" had they stayed at home, not bothered to vote, and then bitched about politics on this very site.
But what do I know. Go ahead and vote for soemone who can't possibly win, then tell everyone that you're neither left nor right, or whatever it is that allows you to feel you don't have a stake in the system. In the end you know that either a Republican or a Democrat will come into power and send troops somewhere to defend US business interests abroad.
#11
Posted 24 September 2007 - 04:41 PM
I think American Media has sort of cheated the public into believing there are only two parties. Look at CNN and all the stupid analyzing shows. Hardball, that stupid lady (you know the one where the name of her show, which is also her name, jitters back and forth in the corner of the screen?) Cooper Anderson etc... These idiots only talk about the heavy weights. Fact is they make the heavy weights heavy.
The problem is people let politicians slide in to their consious via TV. If they aren't on the tube then they don't exist or are obviously not important enough. Which is normal I guess, the average lad is too busy working 9-5 to give a shit.
American vote is based on 85% laziness (the lack of willl to find or support a canditate that isn't on the cover of GQ magazine) 10% gay marriage and 5% on who celebrities back.
It would be so quality if a guy like nader got in. It would pull the rug on dems and reps so hard that the new cool thing would be smaller independent parties, they'd all start joining them in a last ditch effort to be hip to the scene.
---
Voting out of spite, on a loser, or not at all is the same thing. I voted for Green Peace a few times knowing they'd lose. I didn't need to vote at all but at the time my father forced me too.
This post has been edited by Jordan: 24 September 2007 - 04:44 PM
#12
Posted 24 September 2007 - 05:31 PM
#13
Posted 24 September 2007 - 06:38 PM
I'm very disappointed that Obama is a senator and has been spending all of his senator time campaigning. It's a rather dick move. And everyone hates Mrs. Clinton, but nobody can ever tell me why. I've met literally two people who actually have reasons as to why they wouldn't vote for her that go beyond "She sucks!" or some variant of that.
Two party system for the complete global loss.
Cobnat: Libertarians are greedy, selfish people with a political mindset that belongs in the 1700s. (I mainly take offense to their open support of laissez-faire capitalism and total negligence of the protection of people from being voliated by other people.) Unless you want to fight tooth and nail to the top, you'll get uncermoniously stomped on by the rest of them because you'll be in their way.
#14
Posted 24 September 2007 - 07:14 PM
This post has been edited by Spoon Poetic: 24 September 2007 - 07:17 PM
#15
Posted 24 September 2007 - 07:19 PM