For all you 3rd Party Zealots

[Ronin13]

Remember the Clinton years (when he actually followed what congress told him)? Well our current guy is much, much worse... we don't have to have Obama for two terms.
I present this:
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/293141_477079372321285_108784696_n.jpg
Best way to put it!

[ghettodub]

Paul's not on the ticket as a third party, soooo, yeah.

What I do worry about is how all of the Ron Paul fans are going to vote come November, if they're going to vote at all. You would think they would go and vote for Gary Johnson, but I don't think many will (which will again most likely help obama). So many are so hung up on Paul that they won't look at anything else, including the actual libertarian candidate, who is better than Ron Paul IMO.

[Ronin13]

Paul's not on the ticket as a third party, soooo, yeah.

What I do worry about is how all of the Ron Paul fans are going to vote come November, if they're going to vote at all. You would think they would go and vote for Gary Johnson, but I don't think many will (which will again most likely help obama). So many are so hung up on Paul that they won't look at anything else, including the actual libertarian candidate, who is better than Ron Paul IMO.

True, I guess I should have said Paul zealots... [Beer]

[HoneyBadger]

I think most people who are fans of Ron Paul understand the system well enough to know to vote for the candidate with the best chance of beating Obama. However if Romney does a sh*t job in the whitehouse, next election cycle everyone who ever thought about voting 3rd party should vote for a real libertarian candidate.

[Ronin13]

I think most people who are fans of Ron Paul understand the system well enough to know to vote for the candidate with the best chance of beating Obama. However if Romney does a sh*t job in the whitehouse, next election cycle everyone who ever thought about voting 3rd party should vote for a real libertarian candidate.

Precisely! That's what I've been saying since it seemed like Romney was going to get the nod from the Republican party... Okay so this year isn't the year, but if he doesn't start making things better 2016 I'm going to really push for the Libertarian party to get someone elected! [Beer]

[stevelkinevil]

I am torn between Gary Johnson (who I know has no chance, but I can feel honorable about) And Holding my nose and choking down bile to vote for Mittens. I am just not sure I can do it for Mittens, the man makes me physically ill. (but Obeyme gives me the dry heaves) If only we were at a point where a man like Paul could win the nomination, but alas money is the key and no cow towing to special interests means no money.

[Bailey Guns]

I am torn between Gary Johnson (who I know has no chance, but I can feel honorable about) And Holding my nose and choking down bile to vote for Mittens. I am just not sure I can do it for Mittens, the man makes me physically ill. (but Obeyme gives me the dry heaves) If only we were at a point where a man like Paul could win the nomination, but alas money is the key and no cow towing to special interests means no money.

Yeah...the fact that he can only get about 3% of the population to vote for him isn't THAT big of an issue.

[Bailey Guns]

I think most people who are fans of Ron Paul understand the system well enough to know to vote for the candidate with the best chance of beating Obama.

Uh...no, they don't. Want proof. There's overwhelming proof in this forum alone.

[keylay31]

This libertarian says Gary Johnson is a weasel. As an ardent Paul supporter, I haven't decided who I'm goin to vote for... Though I know who it won't be for...

[HoneyBadger]

Uh...no, they don't. Want proof. There's overwhelming proof in this forum alone.

I am proof. Don't be so quick to talk about people whom you do not understand.

[Bailey Guns]

I am proof. Don't be so quick to talk about people whom you do not understand.

I'm not trying to psychoanalyze you. Just responding to your post. Many people on this board have adamantly stated they won't vote for Romney because he's:


the same as Obama
the same as other republicans
not the same as other republicans
not the perfect candidate
puts his right sock on before the left

Many here have also said they'll take their vote and go home or vote for some obscure 3rd party candidate rather than vote for Romney because at least they'll have "a clear conscience". And they're perfectly free to do that. But in my opinion it's cutting off the nose to spite the face. And that's the fast-track way to a 2nd Obama term.

I, and others, have listed many ways (ad nauseum) how Romney IS NOT the same as Obama but still the platitude survives. The Paul supporters tell us we should not compromise our values and vote for someone with whom we don't agree. Well, I don't agree with many things Paul says he wants to do. And I don't fully agree with the libertarian party, either. So for you to say that everyone who's ever thought of voting for a 3rd party candidate should vote libertarian is something that I can't support in the slightest and I think it's an attempt at a "one size fits all" solution that doesn't work for many people.

As a matter of fact, I've yet to find a perfect candidate and I've been voting since 1978. And I have voted 3rd party (Perot)...big mistake and valuable and expensive lesson learned. I won't make that mistake again.

[bryjcom]

I hope Romney is not another Obama, just like I hoped Obama wouldn't be another Bush, just like I hoped that Bush wouldn't be another Clinton, just like....... Oh, whatever....[Bang]

[milwaukeeshaker]

Paul haters just cannot be still. You got your wish, now please stop gloating.

[Goodburbon]

Yep, Romney is the nominee. So I'm just not Republican. I may cast a vote for him, I may sit at home. I may just not care anymore, because I'm wrong for wanting what I want...My constitutional rights and a leader that understands them.

You anti Paul guys are the ones who don't seem to get it. I totally get it. You're caught up in an OMG THE OTHER GUY IS THE DEVIL argument that the republicans are putting out.

Paul was a way to pull me back into the party that betrayed me... all of us. That's why I was for him getting the nomination.

I trusted them with my vote for Bush over the ALGORE. Then I couldn't possibly let that flip flopper swift boat captain get into office so voted Bush again. I voted for McCain because it's what I was supposed to do, even though I was less than thrilled with him a s a candidate. He was the nominee before I even had a say. Then one day I woke up and realized that the Republicans were doing damage to our rights as well. Not only that, they were compromising with the dems on fundamental issues on the grounds of "reaching across the aisle", Unity, etc. Both sides are against me. I'm a conservative libertarian. Personally I think religion is stupid, but respect everyone else's right to believe what they choose, and show reverence toward their decisions. I'm rewarded by blue laws, Vanity taxes and "sin" taxes. I don't believe in sin, yet I'm taxed for it. I also believe in the constitution as written, no magical interpretations or wacky definitions of "the people", "arms", "shall not" etc. NEITHER PARTY OFFERS ME WHAT I WANT. I'm a constitutional conservative, not a religious progressive, or a socialist progressive, or a religious conservative, progressive conservative etc. For me it's like watching two dogs fight over my dinner, no matter who wins, I lose.

Those of you who insist I don't get it... I get it, I've already lost. Insult me all you like, call me a Paul Bot, an idiot, say that my vote is wasted, that I might as well vote for Obama. You're right, I might as well, because he offers me just as much that I agree with as a Conservative, progressive, religious, anti gun guy. Either way, I lose.

[Teufelhund]

@Goodburbon: glad to see you in here again, buddy, posting common sense despite the melee of paranoia and nonsense from both sides. It's nice to know that I'm not alone. Great post.

[HoneyBadger]

@Goodburbon and Teufelhund: You guys certainly are not alone.[Beer]

[bryjcom]

Jeez. Where were you guys when all the epic Paul vs. Establishment Assholes were going on? It got a little lonely there for awhile.

Most of those debates have all gone to internet heaven due to the great crash of 2012.

[Ronin13]

Goodburbon- no party can fully satisfy anyone, but to spew this asinine argument that Mitt is Obama-lite or any other wholly false assumption (because until they're elected we can't be 100% sure how they'll actually act) just further makes you look like you're trying to alienate those of us who actually put aside that stupid "lesser of two evils" crap and recognize "anyone but Obama at this point." Because if you really look at it, I'd rather have Wild Bill Clinton with the Republican congress than Obama, at least Billy-boy did what congress told him, Obama just says "yeah yeah, whatever... I DO WHAT I WANT!" [Rant1]

[HoneyBadger]

Jeez. Where were you guys when all the epic Paul vs. Establishment Assholes were going on? It got a little lonely there for awhile.

Most of those debates have all gone to internet heaven due to the great crash of 2012.

Sorry, I was in California for my job. Tens of thousands of Paul supporters walking around everywhere I went... and I lived in the Central Coast area, not LA or SF!

[bobbyfairbanks]

I'm not trying to psychoanalyze you. Just responding to your post. Many people on this board have adamantly stated they won't vote for Romney because he's:


the same as Obama
the same as other republicans
not the same as other republicans
not the perfect candidate
puts his right sock on before the left

Many here have also said they'll take their vote and go home or vote for some obscure 3rd party candidate rather than vote for Romney because at least they'll have "a clear conscience". And they're perfectly free to do that. But in my opinion it's cutting off the nose to spite the face. And that's the fast-track way to a 2nd Obama term.

I, and others, have listed many ways (ad nauseum) how Romney IS NOT the same as Obama but still the platitude survives. The Paul supporters tell us we should not compromise our values and vote for someone with whom we don't agree. Well, I don't agree with many things Paul says he wants to do. And I don't fully agree with the libertarian party, either. So for you to say that everyone who's ever thought of voting for a 3rd party candidate should vote libertarian is something that I can't support in the slightest and I think it's an attempt at a "one size fits all" solution that doesn't work for many people.

As a matter of fact, I've yet to find a perfect candidate and I've been voting since 1978. And I have voted 3rd party (Perot)...big mistake and valuable and expensive lesson learned. I won't make that mistake again.


Just so you know. When it comes to politics you are a real A hole. If some one doesn't agree with you; they are mocked and ridiculed. God forbid that other people have a though process different then you.

Also To add a balancing point. I commend your strong political opinions. I am sure once separated from political talk (like most people) my opinion of you would be a lot different.

[Ronin13]

Just so you know. When it comes to politics you are a real A hole. If some one isn't very politically smart or informed; they are mocked and ridiculed. God forbid that other people have a though process different then you.

Fixed for you... [Beer]

[milwaukeeshaker]

Yep, a--hole OP #2 just checked in.

[ChadAmberg]

Then one day I woke up and realized that the Republicans were doing damage to our rights as well. Not only that, they were compromising with the dems on fundamental issues on the grounds of "reaching across the aisle", Unity, etc. Both sides are against me. I'm a conservative libertarian. Personally I think religion is stupid, but respect everyone else's right to believe what they choose, and show reverence toward their decisions. I'm rewarded by blue laws, Vanity taxes and "sin" taxes. I don't believe in sin, yet I'm taxed for it. I also believe in the constitution as written, no magical interpretations or wacky definitions of "the people", "arms", "shall not" etc. NEITHER PARTY OFFERS ME WHAT I WANT. I'm a constitutional conservative, not a religious progressive, or a socialist progressive, or a religious conservative, progressive conservative etc. For me it's like watching two dogs fight over my dinner, no matter who wins, I lose.

Wow, you just wrote my bible.

I've voted pretty much straight R tickets since Reagan's first term. In fact, I've only ever voted for a D once and that was a vote against Congresstool Tom Castle who even with an R after his name was more liberal in deeds than most of our Democrats in office here in this state.

I will not vote for the party of stupid blindly anymore only to find out that they'll give in time and time again to the party of evil just so they'll get a quick reach around by the media. The look of surprise on McCain's face when the media turned rabid on him the second he was the nominee disgusted me too much to ever do it again.

Now, I will never vote for a D again in my life no matter the circumstance. To me they fall on the scale somewhere around the Vichy regime.

However I will now vote for third parties if I like the candidate, I'll vote for Republicans if I like the candidate, and I'll leave slots blank if they all suck. My conscience has changed: Before it was do anything to prevent any D from taking office, to now voting for who best matches my interests.

[osok-308]

I think the big thing we need to remember is this: Everything that Obama had done up until now will be TAME compared to what he will do without having to try to save face for another term. Romney may leave a bad taste in our mouths, however some individual freedoms (such as gun ownership) will certainly be under attack if Obama wins, and I'd rather have freedom even if it comes at the price of the bad taste of Romney. The anti-second amendment party will definitely go after our rights.

[Ronin13]

I think the big thing we need to remember is this: Everything that Obama had done up until now will be TAME compared to what he will do without having to try to save face for another term. Romney may leave a bad taste in our mouths, however some individual freedoms (such as gun ownership) will certainly be under attack if Obama wins, and I'd rather have freedom even if it comes at the price of the bad taste of Romney. The anti-second amendment party will definitely go after our rights.

Every time someone says this I can't help but get a sound bite in my head of him talking to Medvedev (or whatever that Pinko bastards name is) "After I'm re-elected I'll have more freedom [to shred the constitution... hail Stalin!]"

[Goodburbon]

I think the big thing we need to remember is this: Everything that Obama had done up until now will be TAME compared to what he will do without having to try to save face for another term. Romney may leave a bad taste in our mouths, however some individual freedoms (such as gun ownership) will certainly be under attack if Obama wins, and I'd rather have freedom even if it comes at the price of the bad taste of Romney. The anti-second amendment party will definitely go after our rights.


More Gun control won't pass if the R's have the house, so your argument is moot.

[bryjcom]

I find it amazing that people give Obama any credit at all. He doesn't know what the hell he's doing... He's a puppet put out on stage and told to read the teleprompter.

Romney will be the same teleprompter reading puppet.

[xring]

I find it amazing that people give Obama any credit at all. He doesn't know what the hell he's doing... He's a puppet put out on stage and told to read the teleprompter.

Romney will be the same teleprompter reading puppet.

I support team TRP the red one the red one it must be!

NO I support team TRP the blue one the blue one it must be!

[Ronin13]

More Gun control won't pass if the R's have the house, so your argument is moot.

Right... because Obama is such a staunch supporter of checks and balances and wouldn't dream of going ahead with whatever he wants despite what congress says... [Shake]

"Under the radar," remember...

[Aloha_Shooter]

More Gun control won't pass if the R's have the house, so your argument is moot.

... because Obama has paid SO much attention to his Constitutional duty to seek advice and consent from the Senate and Eric Holder didn't try to use Fast and Furious to create an inflammatory case to invoke gun control and the Obama Administration ISN'T trying to pass the UN Arms Trade Treaty after installing a Supreme Court Justice who thinks it's right and proper to look at what foreign governments and treaties are doing rather than historical Constitutional precedent ...

[Goodburbon]

The republican party won't stand up to fix the problems. We're going to have to wait until the people do. As long as the people think that voting for one of those two parties will make a difference, we'll continue along this path.

[HoneyBadger]

The republican party won't stand up to fix the problems. We're going to have to wait until the people do. As long as the people think that voting for one of those two parties will make a difference, we'll continue along this path.

Yup.

[bryjcom]

Voting for Romney is equivalent to kicking the can down the road.

[xring]

The democrats and republicans relationship is so symbiotic that a vote for one is a vote for the other. Neither red or blue wings of Team TRP will protect our rights as defined by the Constitution or balance the budget. I will however support anyone who voted against the NDAA regardless of party affiliation.CO 1 Rep. Diana Louise DeGette (http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/561/diana-degette) Democratic Nay
2 Rep. Jared Polis (http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/106220/jared-polis) Democratic NayCO 3 Rep. Scott R. Tipton (http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/65403/scott-tipton) Republican NayCO 4 Rep. Cory Gardner (http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/30004/cory-gardner) Republican YeaCO 5 Rep. Douglas L. ‘Doug’ Lamborn (http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/2698/doug-lamborn) Republican YeaCO 6 Rep. Michael ‘Mike’ Coffman (http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/1535/michael-coffman) Republican NayCO 7 Rep. Ed Perlmutter (http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/2653/ed-perlmutter) Democratic Yea

[Ronin13]

Voting for Romney is equivalent to kicking the can down the road.

As opposed to voting for Obama (or anyone else which I equate as the same thing) is like cutting yourself... a lot.

[Aloha_Shooter]

Voting for Romney is equivalent to kicking the can down the road.

Voting for a third party this year is like voting for Obama which is equivalent to taking that can and repeatedly smashing yourself in the face with it.

A lot of extreme statements about Romney here but I ask you this: do you honestly think Romney would have appointed Eric Holder as Attorney General? Do you think he would have appointed Elena Kagan or Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court? Do you think he would have completely ignored Congress and claimed he was making recess appointments despite Congress being in session? Are you saying he would have revived negotiations with the UN to pass their Arms Trade Treaty? Are you claiming he would have appointed a radical environmentalist to head the EPA and allowed them to pass extensive intrusive "regulations" without any Congressional review?

There's a lot I don't like about what the GOP has done but they are NOT the same as the Democrats and anyone that says they are is equivalent to one of Lenin's "useful idiots".

[xring]

Voting for a third party this year is like voting for Obama which is equivalent to taking that can and repeatedly smashing yourself in the face with it.

A lot of extreme statements about Romney here but I ask you this: do you honestly think Romney would have appointed Eric Holder as Attorney General? Do you think he would have appointed Elena Kagan or Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court? Do you think he would have completely ignored Congress and claimed he was making recess appointments despite Congress being in session? Are you saying he would have revived negotiations with the UN to pass their Arms Trade Treaty? Are you claiming he would have appointed a radical environmentalist to head the EPA and allowed them to pass extensive intrusive "regulations" without any Congressional review?

There's a lot I don't like about what the GOP has done but they are NOT the same as the Democrats and anyone that says they are is equivalent to one of Lenin's "useful idiots".


I will not vote with fear as a driver anymore too old, too tired. Im going to vote for somone who supports the Constitution and balancing the budget.

[osok-308]

... because Obama has paid SO much attention to his Constitutional duty to seek advice and consent from the Senate and Eric Holder didn't try to use Fast and Furious to create an inflammatory case to invoke gun control and the Obama Administration ISN'T trying to pass the UN Arms Trade Treaty after installing a Supreme Court Justice who thinks it's right and proper to look at what foreign governments and treaties are doing rather than historical Constitutional precedent ..

Agreed.

Truth is, I would love for the candidate who best exemplifies the Constitution that this great nation was founded upon. However, at this present time, no candidate who has a chance to win fits this description. There is a lot to lose this election, I am a realist and I will vote for whoever has the best chance to beat the socialist we currently have. I hope Rand Paul runs for president soon.

[jerrymrc]

Agreed.

Truth is, I would love for the candidate who best exemplifies the Constitution that this great nation was founded upon. However, at this present time, no candidate who has a chance to win fits this description. There is a lot to lose this election, I am a realist and I will vote for whoever has the best chance to beat the socialist we currently have. I hope Rand Paul runs for president soon.

And I agree as well. I hate both of them. But the current one has to go at any cost.

So we get the so-so whatever light. The bottom line as far as it looks to me is that if we get another 4 years of the current one nothing may ever be able to be turned back.

Just my thought on the subject.

[Fentonite]

...The bottom line as far as it looks to me is that if we get another 4 years of the current one nothing may ever be able to be turned back.

yup. As if all his republic-squashing so far isn't bad enough, he's already basically admitted that once he's re-elected, the brakes come off, and that's when he'll destroy us for good. It's time to use our brains, be logical, and vote with a purpose, not emotional fancy.

[xring]

Every comment in this thread that favors Romney illustrates the symbiotic relationship between the republican and democratic partys. Not one post that says Yah know i dont like Mitts stance on blah but 9 out of ten of his viewpoints I support him on. Its all we gotta beat Obama. Romney can not exist without Obama. On the other side its the same. Most democrats realize that everthing that came out of Obamas mouth during the campaign was a lie. The fear they are being fed is dont you remember Bush. Obama can not exist without Bush. Either party can not exist without the other as no one likes whats going on, they vote out of fear, if there was nothing to fear they would say im not going to vote for this piece of s***. This is the nature of a symbiotic organism. So are the people of the USA channeled into voting for the same organism. What makes it so sad is the people of both sides are ,with exceptions, hard working individuals who want little more than to enjoy their time with their family and have a somewhat satisfying job.

[bryjcom]

Does anyone find it weird that you have one of the biggest conservative uprisings in recent history, with the uprising of the Tea Party, Campaign for Liberty, Freedom Works, and a whole host of other conservative organizations, and yet the most progressive republican candidate gets the nomination?


Is that just a co-inky dink or is this whole thing by design?

[HoneyBadger]

Does anyone find it weird that you have one of the biggest conservative uprisings in recent history, with the uprising of the Tea Party, Campaign for Liberty, Freedom Works, and a whole host of other conservative organizations, and yet the most progressive republican candidate gets the nomination?


Is that just a co-inky dink or is this whole thing by design?

I'd rather not think about it. [Rant1]

[Aloha_Shooter]

I will not vote with fear as a driver anymore too old, too tired. Im going to vote for somone who supports the Constitution and balancing the budget.

The beauty of our system of government is that you're entitled to state your opinion and vote as you want. However, in MY opinion, people that thought as you did are why we got stuck with Slick Willy not once but twice and if we get stuck with O'Bummer a second time, it'll be because of people who hold out for "perfect".

[Rucker61]

Does anyone find it weird that you have one of the biggest conservative uprisings in recent history, with the uprising of the Tea Party, Campaign for Liberty, Freedom Works, and a whole host of other conservative organizations, and yet the most progressive republican candidate gets the nomination?


Is that just a co-inky dink or is this whole thing by design?

For a Republican to win, he/she needs to capture enough of the political middle to get a majority. An extremely conservative Republican won't be as attractive to that middle as a more progressive one will be.

[bryjcom]

The beauty of our system of government is that you're entitled to state your opinion and vote as you want. However, in MY opinion, people that thought as you did are why we got stuck with Slick Willy not once but twice and if we get stuck with O'Bummer a second time, it'll be because of people who hold out for "perfect".


In my opinion, people that think like you are responsible for the continued turds getting nominations and nothing changing.

Imagine if more people thought like us and a 3rd party candidate got 20% of the popular vote. I think that might send some messages to the establishment. Now imagine if the following general election a 3rd party candidate got 40% or 50%.



The bottom line is we need to kill the two party system and get rid of the cancer of voting for the less of two evils. Your mentality hasn't gotten us anywhere.

[Goodburbon]

But Bryj their mentality is REALITY. we should all just deal with it and get back into the herd, because maybe next time the candidate will be ok, but this time the earth will explode if the other guy gets in.

[bryjcom]

For a Republican to win, he/she needs to capture enough of the political middle to get a majority. An extremely conservative Republican won't be as attractive to that middle as a more progressive one will be.

Riiiiight. Cause that worked so well for McCain

Your whole premise is based on the idea that somehow a progressive republican will fix our country instead of a democratic progressive.

The problem is democrats and republicans are equally responsible for the march toward tyranny.

Do you really think Romney is going to fix our country? Do you really think voting for a "moderate" republican is going to reverse the march toward tyranny? I don't think so.

You guys that vote against Obama and mark Romney's box are kicking the can down the road, just like I said a few posts ago. Meanwhile the Globalists are laughing the whole time.....

I pray that my opinion on Romney is wrong.

[buffalobo]

Don't care what party a candidate comes from, think party system is in place to fool people into limiting their own choices and start them down the road to accepting what the party states.

I analyze each candidates words, actions and deeds, measure that against the yard stick of constitutional adherence and make my determination.

I have determined that neither the D or R "front runner" even register on the scale. I will not vote for either. Am still looking looking @ the lesser known and unknown candidates.

Eventually I will select and vote for a candidate and hope he or she wins.

I see this process as my civic duty and if everyone did it, we would have very little to fear or worry about.

Pretty simple, to me anyway.

[Ronin13]

In my opinion, people that think like you are responsible for the continued turds getting nominations and nothing changing.

Imagine if more people thought like us and a 3rd party candidate got 20% of the popular vote. I think that might send some messages to the establishment. Now imagine if the following general election a 3rd party candidate got 40% or 50%.



The bottom line is we need to kill the two party system and get rid of the cancer of voting for the less of two evils. Your mentality hasn't gotten us anywhere.

You guys keep saying that, "Your mentality hasn't gotten us anywhere." How about instead of pointing fingers and playing the blame game you give a little insight, in your opinion, as to how we're going to spread the word and convince the rest. Because by now I think you guys have said it til you're blue in the face and we totally get it, we would love to end the two party system and get a 3rd party candidate elected to help make the changes needed, but I get the impression is that YOU DON'T GET IT- we do, it's not like if we all (members here I mean) vote for a 3rd party they're going to somehow, miraculously, get elected. You have to change a lot of minds away from this thinking, and that cannot happen swiftly, it for sure won't happen this month, this year, hell, I seriously doubt it will happen this DECADE because let's face it, people are stubborn (if you want proof talk to a Democrat, they're pretty stupid and stubborn and never ever ever listen to the other side of the table). You can't change the world overnight, and you're constant (again, not YOU specifically, but people who spout that exact same rhetoric) harping on this "end the two party system, stop with the lesser of two evils crap, you're not helping, blah blah blah" is tired and played out. I don't mean this as an insult to you, but regardless of us getting it or not it's not "us" you need to worry about and berate, it's EVERYONE ELSE that you need to try to convince. For us to recognize the way things are because of everyone else doesn't make it so that we're holding back the 3rd party, it makes it so that we don't waste our vote on someone with a 0.000% chance of getting elected into office in November. Remember, every person who should be voting for Romney that doesn't is taking away a vote from him, and thus giving the upper hand to the Marxist camp of Hussein Obamallama-ding-dong and securing his re-election. Keep that in mind when you hit the voting booth in a few months, please, for the sake of our children and their future. [Beer]

[Great-Kazoo]

A 3rd party candidate has an uphill battle. Not so much from lack of exposure, but lack of exposure (i know confusing)
The 3rd party candidate gets the word out only to be stiffled by the media and the Dems & GOP. The 08 election had more than 2 people running, however both D&R did everything possible to have said entities denied stage time during debates. The media (surprise) went along with this farce, thus one more obstacle in the way of a 3rd party. Unless a 3rd party can get a good buzz on the web they will face an up hill battle from D&R and any media circus. After all who wants their apple cart turned over by a legit person from outside the 2 party system.

Another thing is a person running for office spends more time & money discrediting an opponent than actually getting a message out there.
Myself, i feel it's time to vote from the roof top in a manner of speaking.

[Badger]

As a matter of fact, I've yet to find a perfect candidate and I've been voting since 1978. And I have voted 3rd party (Perot)...big mistake and valuable and expensive lesson learned. I won't make that mistake again.


So rather than getting off your ass like some of the rest of us, you'll sit there and vote for the lesser of two turds? Got it.... great thinking there. Personally I'd recommend keeping cranium external to colon, and thinking a little outside the realm of possibility into probability..... a.k.a. turn the tables to the favor of the American voting public. (Legal, etc., but that's a whole different discussion...)

The 2 party system that we vote with has been a bullshit failed system for many years than any of us in here have been alive to see. Granted this term we're all screwed because yet again we're stuck with the decision "Shall there be a Democrat or Republican in the White House?", because at this point, voting 3rd party WILL be just like voting for Perot back in the day.

We as a country need to wake the hell up and realize that NEITHER a Democratic or Republican party will aid us as a UNITED COUNTRY. "A country that's divided surely will not stand".... and ironically that's the very thing we have. Dems, or Reps, Cons or Libs, Right or Left........ "divided".

Maybe one day we'll truly be able to elect a president based on that individual's own platform..... No party, no affiliation, no special interest group. Part of it starts with sharing this mindset with those closest to us, who then share it with others and so on. A pipe dream? Maybe, but for the sake of this country, let's hope not.

As far as this election goes, yes, any other vote than Romney, may very well be a vote for Odouchebama. But never lose track that something better can exist, it simply has to be decided that what we have now, isn't working.


Badger

[Aloha_Shooter]

You can lay all the hypotheticals you want about a third party candidate winning and getting back to the Constitution. I've got the real world example of the Perotistas giving Slick Willy the election not once but twice. I liked Perot up until he handed the election to the same guy that gave us the AWB and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I haven't liked Souter but he's far less dangerous than Ginsburg.

George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush both had their flaws but neither was as bad as the cretin currently occupying the Oval Office by a long shot.

[Great-Kazoo]

I'm curious with all the reply's exactly when you all first voted? For me it was 74.
Just kind of wondering what the age spectrum is.

[buffalobo]

You guys keep saying that, "Your mentality hasn't gotten us anywhere." How about instead of pointing fingers and playing the blame game you give a little insight, in your opinion, as to how we're going to spread the word and convince the rest. Because by now I think you guys have said it til you're blue in the face and we totally get it, we would love to end the two party system and get a 3rd party candidate elected to help make the changes needed, but I get the impression is that YOU DON'T GET IT- we do, it's not like if we all (members here I mean) vote for a 3rd party they're going to somehow, miraculously, get elected. You have to change a lot of minds away from this thinking, and that cannot happen swiftly, it for sure won't happen this month, this year, hell, I seriously doubt it will happen this DECADE because let's face it, people are stubborn (if you want proof talk to a Democrat, they're pretty stupid and stubborn and never ever ever listen to the other side of the table). You can't change the world overnight, and you're constant (again, not YOU specifically, but people who spout that exact same rhetoric) harping on this "end the two party system, stop with the lesser of two evils crap, you're not helping, blah blah blah" is tired and played out. I don't mean this as an insult to you, but regardless of us getting it or not it's not "us" you need to worry about and berate, it's EVERYONE ELSE that you need to try to convince. For us to recognize the way things are because of everyone else doesn't make it so that we're holding back the 3rd party, it makes it so that we don't waste our vote on someone with a 0.000% chance of getting elected into office in November. Remember, every person who should be voting for Romney that doesn't is taking away a vote from him, and thus giving the upper hand to the Marxist camp of Hussein Obamallama-ding-dong and securing his re-election. Keep that in mind when you hit the voting booth in a few months, please, for the sake of our children and their future. [Beer]


You spread the word by talking to people, one at a time. Of course it will take a long time to enlighten enough people to make a difference. But if you never start you will never finish. While doing the slow work of educating people you take the lead in voting for quality, constitution adherent candidates. If a third party(or fourth or fifth) is to ever garner enough votes(I don't think he needs to win, just be a threat to win) to start the break of the two party strangle hold, then you must be williing to vote for him when he has no chance to win, you must be willing to vote for principle.

At some point the transition from no chance to slight chance will happen. When it does then momentum will start to build. As the momentum starts to build the band wagon jumpers(aka the masses too ignorant, lazy or dependent to do other than follow the herd) will start to move that direction and the movement will be impossible to put down.

It begins with being willing to walk the long hard path of voting for principle.

[buffalobo]

You can lay all the hypotheticals you want about a third party candidate winning and getting back to the Constitution. I've got the real world example of the Perotistas giving Slick Willy the election not once but twice. I liked Perot up until he handed the election to the same guy that gave us the AWB and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I haven't liked Souter but he's far less dangerous than Ginsburg.

George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush both had their flaws but neither was as bad as the cretin currently occupying the Oval Office by a long shot.


How many lesser turds(election cycles) does it take to get a turd that doesn't smell? There have been what, four election cycles since Perot? Do the turds smell any better yet?

IMO they smell worse and we have lost ground.

[Eow]

George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush both had their flaws but neither was as bad as the cretin currently occupying the Oval Office by a long shot.

You are entitled to your opinion of course, but I don't see much difference at all between Bush and Obama, other than their rhetoric. Both agree on:



Massive federal spending on medical care (Bush rolled out the biggest entitlement since Lyndon Johnson with his prescription drug benefit plan)
Massive bailouts for banks
Massive expansion of federal government (look at DHS)
Raising the debt cap routinely
Guantanamo Bay
Running the Iraq war (Obama followed Bush's plan to pull out)
Patriot Act
Torturing/Killing even American citizens without any judicial review (Bush tortured, Obama just kills them with aerial drones)
Massive expansion of Presidential power through record amounts of Executive Orders
Bush tax cuts
Spending deficits that dwarf their predecessors

They seem pretty damn similar to me, why would you perpetuate that? Supreme Court picks? You mean like Bush's appointment of Roberts who wrote the opinion approving Obamacare with the four liberal judges?


When this country goes to hell from these Republocrats being in charge, anyone who votes for them has only himself to look at when asking how we got into this mess. Vote the lesser of two evils?



Those of you who say you are realists, think about this: At the ballot box, it doesn't matter who you vote for, your one vote won't make the difference. I will vote my conscience, probably for the former two-time Republican governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson. If everyone voted their conscience we would be a lot better off.

[TEAMRICO]

Yaaaaaawn.
If I don't see MY CONSIENCE on the ballot form should I just pen it in?



Vote the way you want. Live with the fact you made zero difference.
You won't sway many with your decision.
Thanks anyways.
Bush aint running.........
Just saying.

[Rucker61]

Massive expansion of Presidential power through record amounts of Executive Orders



For a point of order, I don't think that this claim necessarily holds water, at least for the second half. Here's a listing of issued Presidential Orders:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html

Based on the current rate, Obama appears to be on pace to end up around 150 or so for a single term. Since the end of WWII, we've had six greater than a single term (to include Nixon) issue more than 300 Orders during their Administration. Truman tops the list with 898, and Ike is next with 482. Reagan, Clinton, Nixon and Johnson follow in the 300+ club.

[Bailey Guns]

So rather than getting off your ass like some of the rest of us, you'll sit there and vote for the lesser of two turds? Got it.... great thinking there. Personally I'd recommend keeping cranium external to colon, and thinking a little outside the realm of possibility into probability..... a.k.a. turn the tables to the favor of the American voting public. (Legal, etc., but that's a whole different discussion...)

The 2 party system that we vote with has been a bullshit failed system for many years than any of us in here have been alive to see. Granted this term we're all screwed because yet again we're stuck with the decision "Shall there be a Democrat or Republican in the White House?", because at this point, voting 3rd party WILL be just like voting for Perot back in the day.

We as a country need to wake the hell up and realize that NEITHER a Democratic or Republican party will aid us as a UNITED COUNTRY. "A country that's divided surely will not stand".... and ironically that's the very thing we have. Dems, or Reps, Cons or Libs, Right or Left........ "divided".

Maybe one day we'll truly be able to elect a president based on that individual's own platform..... No party, no affiliation, no special interest group. Part of it starts with sharing this mindset with those closest to us, who then share it with others and so on. A pipe dream? Maybe, but for the sake of this country, let's hope not.

As far as this election goes, yes, any other vote than Romney, may very well be a vote for Odouchebama. But never lose track that something better can exist, it simply has to be decided that what we have now, isn't working.


Badger

Oh, really? Well what the fuck are you doing that's so life-altering that the rest of us should listen to you...much less follow your advice?

And I have news for you. I'm plenty active politically and I'm a vocal advocate for what I believe in. I'm so sick and tired of all the 3rd party bullshit that I could just scream. I don't have 100 years to fix the system. I have to work with what I have for the remaining 20 to 30 years of my life. And right now, what I have, is the 2 party system. So you can peddle your 3rd party snake oil all you want. Your gonna find very few buyers.

Furthermore, you're preaching to the segment of the population (those that love freedom and believe in the constitution) who is most likely to listen to you. And you're not even convincing to most of us. What do you think the true liberals/lefties think when they read your bullshit? I guarantee you you're not convincing to many of them, either.

Bottom line is, take your 3rd party fairytales and kiss my ass. And after all your hardass tough guy posturing what have you come up with? Oh, yeah...that's right. What many of us have been saying all along. A vote for anyone other than the Republican nominee is basically a vote for Romney.

So much for all your preaching. But I think I'll stick to the church of common sense. And, I will vote my conscience. I will vote for the candidate I think best represents what I believe in, even if that candidate isn't perfect. I will vote for the candidate that I think will do the best job...even if it's not a perfect job. I will make every possible effort to convince others that my decision is the right decision for this election and will encourage them to vote in a like manner, for the same candidate. I will not vote for some pie-in-the-sky, minor player. Especially this year...and probably not next time either.

Fuckin' deal with it.

[Goodburbon]

You and people who think like you will continue to perpetuate this problem until there is no more country to save.

Thank you for being so hard headed.

[Bailey Guns]

WTF ever.

[Goodburbon]

Like it or not, the two party system is DESTROYING THIS COUNTRY. Rather than fight it, and stand up again and again for it, you get slapped down once, and give up. Put your yoke back on, your Perot adventure is over the flock is calling.


Don't worry, I'm sure the republicans will come around and govern with actual conservative principles this time...or maybe next time, or maybe the time after that, or perahaps for your grand children.

[Bailey Guns]

WTF ever.

[milwaukeeshaker]

Oooo, somebody got their panties in a wad.

[Whistler]

Yeah this time around I think I'll vote for Bob, my neighbor. He's a pretty nice guy and I really like his stand on the issues. Bob for President! [Luck]

I agree with both of you; the two-party system has become a joke and is destroying this country. Our choices for many years have amounted to different sides of the same coin. Unfortunately I also believe the reality is that voting for a third party is a vote for "the other guy" though which one depends on who you ask. Could we vote in a 3rd party? I suppose it's possible but the rules of the game impose a lot of obstacles and the division of The People works to their disadvantage.

I don't believe it could be effectively changed by playing their game or voting in one single candidate or another because you are still playing with a marked deck. To change this we have to change the game. Status quo is no longer palatable unless you're happy with what has come before and what we see coming in our future. It's become obvious doing your best to vote for the best guy isn't working because we are only presented with choices that serve the game and not our best interests. We have to put aside the petty details of party affiliations and address the more systemic issues of corruption and cronyism. I propose we come together to discuss & discover how to return the government to it's rightful owner - The People.

Saw a good start in a thread (http://www.ar-15.co/forums/showthread.php?t=58214) here recently. [Coffee]

[dwalker460]

I have never voted a party line, consider myself pretty much only as Conservative although I generically support the Republican viewpoint. I believe in less government, the Constitution, and I prefer lower taxes.

Do I agree with everything the people i vote for have to say? Are you fucking kidding me? I cant even agree with my WIFE all the time! WTF are you nutrunners looking for? UTOPIA? Doesnt exist, just ask all the hippies who smoked up the last 40 years looking for it.

Paul has a lot of good things to say, its cool you like his viewpoint and identify with his ideals. The problem here is he will never win an election. Period. Keep on believing and drinking the kool-aid, but its not going to happen. Is a third party possible? 200 years of history says no.

So what are we to do?

How about working from within to change the party? And maybe understand that ALL POLITICS are exactly that, politics? Maybe, just maybe, that is the right path.

[Teufelhund]

I have never voted a party line, consider myself pretty much only as Conservative although I generically support the Republican viewpoint. I believe in less government, the Constitution, and I prefer lower taxes.

Do I agree with everything the people i vote for have to say? Are you fucking kidding me? I cant even agree with my WIFE all the time! WTF are you nutrunners looking for? UTOPIA? Doesnt exist, just ask all the hippies who smoked up the last 40 years looking for it.

Paul has a lot of good things to say, its cool you like his viewpoint and identify with his ideals. The problem here is he will never win an election. Period. Keep on believing and drinking the kool-aid, but its not going to happen. Is a third party possible? 200 years of history says no.

So what are we to do?

How about working from within to change the party? And maybe understand that ALL POLITICS are exactly that, politics? Maybe, just maybe, that is the right path.

If you believe in smaller government, you should pay closer attention to the Republican party's record (especially since you claim to "support their viewpoint"). They don't agree with you.

By the way, your speculation that a third party is not viable is in fact disproved by history. Two of the four Presidents immortalized on Mount Rushmore ran outside the two-party system: George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

[Goodburbon]

oh my gosh you're right. you put it so succinctly without resorting to any namecalling or......oh wait nevermind.

its not about Paul. its about freedom, liberty, and standing up for what is right and just. neither party offers that and a compromise on those values is what? that's right, giving up a little freedom, liberty ands settling for what's not right or just.

many of you seem content to compromise your values over and over again, that's cool. Then you call the people who don't accept your compromise "nutrunners". less cool, but still your right I guess.

some of you would rather break the country up. this is not likely to be peaceful given the propensity of the federal government to declare war on its own citizens to hold theses states together and the size of their army/ nature of their weaponry. a second civil war would turn out much worse for the "south". As much as I would like to see the burdensome chains of this federal Leviathan lifted, it seems that the easiest way for this to come.about is to let it kill itself. vote Democrat. thresefle head will continue to consume the body at a faster pace with them in charge and you'll get your. reset a lot sooner.

[hollohas]

I don't think any of us think Mitt is the perfect guy...far from it. But he would be an improvement. And that's what we have to focus on, improving things even if it's baby steps. Those who won't vote for Mitt because he is not perfect and they want to "change the system" are trying to bite off too big a chunk...take too big a step, that is frankly out of reach. Keep trying to take the big leap to fix the system and you will keep missing...gaining ZERO ground. Take a smaller step and at least have better chance of getting closer to the goal.

IMO, one more attempt at a big leap (few supporting a 3rd party who can't win) which results in one more miss (O'Bummer winning) might just put the system in a place where we can't take it back ever. This current POTUS will damage this country to such an extent if he is reelected that it will take more than a few election cycles to fix...it might never be fixed.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have to gain some ground, any ground. Spreading our votes out so BO wins ensures we won't gain ANY. Compartmentalization. Focus on a short term, attainable goal. Once we get that, focus on a new goal. There are battles and there are wars...

In other words, we can't go straight to Berlin, we have to battle through the rest of Europe first.

We can't go straight to Japan, we have to take the Aleutians, Marshall, Turk and Palau first.

Small victories.

Vote Mitt and get a small victory. Then we can reorganize, re-energize and take bigger steps over the next 4 years.

[Teufelhund]

Vote Mitt and get a small victory. Then we can reorganize, re-energize and take bigger steps over the next 4 years.

I keep seeing this sentiment from you guys that want everyone to band together and support the guy who might be better than what we have. What's your plan then? After November are you all going to actually start actively campaigning for a Libertarian President in 2016? Or is this just rhetoric that helps you sleep at night?

[HoneyBadger]

Paul has a lot of good things to say, its cool you like his viewpoint and identify with his ideals. The problem here is he will never win an election. Period. Keep on believing and drinking the kool-aid, but its not going to happen. Is a third party possible? 200 years of history says no.

So what are we to do?

How about working from within to change the party? And maybe understand that ALL POLITICS are exactly that, politics? Maybe, just maybe, that is the right path.

This is exactly what Ron Paul is doing. That's why he's running as a Republican and is going to be on the ticket in Tampa. He IS inspiring change from within. Check out the Audit the Fed Bill (H.R. 459)

[HoneyBadger]

I keep seeing this sentiment from you guys that want everyone to band together and support the guy who might be better than what we have. What's your plan then? After November are you all going to actually start actively campaigning for a Libertarian President in 2016? Or is this just rhetoric that helps you sleep at night?

hahaha rhetoric helps sheep sleep at night... [ROFL1]

[hollohas]

I keep seeing this sentiment from you guys that want everyone to band together and support the guy who might be better than what we have. What's your plan then? After November are you all going to actually start actively campaigning for a Libertarian President in 2016? Or is this just rhetoric that helps you sleep at night?

I supported Paul financially (donations) , verbally everyday and visually (stickers and signs). It didn't work. Now it's plan B.

I am not going to get tunnel vision watching the Maginot Line while I get flanked through the Ardennes. Got to beat BO even if Plan A didn't work.

PS - just to be clear, Yes, I will again actively campaign for Libertarians for the next 4 years and beyond.

[Ronin13]

Oh, really? Well what the fuck are you doing that's so life-altering that the rest of us should listen to you...much less follow your advice?

And I have news for you. I'm plenty active politically and I'm a vocal advocate for what I believe in. I'm so sick and tired of all the 3rd party bullshit that I could just scream. I don't have 100 years to fix the system. I have to work with what I have for the remaining 20 to 30 years of my life. And right now, what I have, is the 2 party system. So you can peddle your 3rd party snake oil all you want. Your gonna find very few buyers.

Furthermore, you're preaching to the segment of the population (those that love freedom and believe in the constitution) who is most likely to listen to you. And you're not even convincing to most of us. What do you think the true liberals/lefties think when they read your bullshit? I guarantee you you're not convincing to many of them, either.

Bottom line is, take your 3rd party fairytales and kiss my ass. And after all your hardass tough guy posturing what have you come up with? Oh, yeah...that's right. What many of us have been saying all along. A vote for anyone other than the Republican nominee is basically a vote for Romney.

So much for all your preaching. But I think I'll stick to the church of common sense. And, I will vote my conscience. I will vote for the candidate I think best represents what I believe in, even if that candidate isn't perfect. I will vote for the candidate that I think will do the best job...even if it's not a perfect job. I will make every possible effort to convince others that my decision is the right decision for this election and will encourage them to vote in a like manner, for the same candidate. I will not vote for some pie-in-the-sky, minor player. Especially this year...and probably not next time either.

Fuckin' deal with it.

I agree 100%. They're going about it all wrong. Saying things like "2 party system, YOU'RE what's wrong with this country," congrats, instead of embracing my vote you just pushed it away. I have family and friends that have and always will vote Republican, no matter what... Hell, I can't even convince them to switch from Whiskey to Bourbon, what makes you think I'll be able to get them to move on a much bigger ticket item like voting? If you're looking to move away from the 2 party system how about you go back to school and learn how to come up with a persuasive argument first? You can't get people to side with you if you attack them. I suggest you read this (http://www.ar-15.co/forums/showthread.php?t=58219) and then try again.


I supported Paul financially (donations) , verbally everyday and visually (stickers and signs). It didn't work. Now it's plan B.

I am not going to get tunnel vision watching the Maginot Line while I get flanked through the Ardennes. Got to beat BO even if Plan A didn't work.

PS - just to be clear, Yes, I will again actively campaign for Libertarians for the next 4 years and beyond.
Here's one who gets it! [Beer]

[Teufelhund]

"I won't vote third-party because you guys are mean." [Cry]

I'm paraphrasing of course, but a lot of you keep saying this. If that's the best you can come up with, I suggest you leave the voting to those with the ability to think for themselves.

[HoneyBadger]

I supported Paul financially (donations) , verbally everyday and visually (stickers and signs). It didn't work. Now it's plan B.

I am not going to get tunnel vision watching the Maginot Line while I get flanked through the Ardennes. Got to beat BO even if Plan A didn't work.

PS - just to be clear, Yes, I will again actively campaign for Libertarians for the next 4 years and beyond.

I appreciate this. I too gave to Paul's campaign, and I will never stop supporting his cause and supporting the spread of liberty, but this election cycle has basically been decided before its even begun. Plan B sucks, but it's better than trying to take the morning-after pill...

[Goodburbon]

mitt isn't a small victory, he's a small-er loss.

[Goodburbon]

the problem is multi faceted. 1. the media controls what we see, therefore can direct what we think. if we continually see that there is no chance for a third party, even when an overwhelming majority would support it, it never gets any legs.

2. a certain segment of the population is convinced that a and b are the only choices, see #1.

3. some who see that c is a better choice than a or b refuse to vote for c because he has no.chance. see#1.

4. some people will vote what they've always voted because change is scary.

5 some will belittle the position of those who actively seek change because ...it can't happen this time. and that's the excuse.every time. see number one.




vote for who you think.is gonna win, because that's what you were told and fulfill the prophecy that the media creates for you.


or stand for what is.right. regardless of whether or not it will win, convince your friends to do the same and watch the magic.

[Whistler]

Wasn't it Mr. Clemens that opined "In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."

[buffalobo]

Wasn't it Mr. Clemens that opined "In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."


Sam was a smart man, and correct.

[Sharpienads]

We seem to have this arguement quite often. A lot of us like a lot of things about Ron Paul (and dislike a lot of things), we just don't believe he has a chance of winning. And why does he run as a Republican? I thought the two party system was what's wrong with America? Or is it possible to, instead of voting third party, retake the Republican party with people like Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Jim Demint, et al. and restore the party to what it was originally stood for?

Regardless, voting for the right president isn't going to fix our problems. If you think it will, you're just as bad as the rest of the big government idiots. The states suck off the federal tit and don't want to give it up. Until we change that, nothing will get better.

[buffalobo]

If voting for the right president won't fix any problems. What will voting for the wrong president do?

[Sharpienads]

Maybe I should have said "won't fix our problems".

The point still stands that what we want (liberty) isn't going to come from the top down. The federal government *should* be so inconsequential that we hardly even notice it. Voting for a good president is definitely important, but it shouldn't be as important as who you vote for for governor or your state legislature. Unfortunately, we all seem to tend toward centralizing everything, including believing voting for the right president is somehow going to restore all constitutionality to our government. If we had strong independent states that held the federal government accountable, the difference between Paul, Romney, or Maobama wouldn't matter as much. But our states are dependent on the federal government. Until we can fix that, we will continue this cycle of bad president, slightly better but still bad pres, worst pres, who do I vote for now pres.

Just MHO.

[Whistler]

Maybe I should have said "won't fix our problems".

The point still stands that what we want (liberty) isn't going to come from the top down. The federal government *should* be so inconsequential that we hardly even notice it. Voting for a good president is definitely important, but it shouldn't be as important as who you vote for for governor or your state legislature. Unfortunately, we all seem to tend toward centralizing everything, including believing voting for the right president is somehow going to restore all constitutionality to our government. If we had strong independent states that held the federal government accountable, the difference between Paul, Romney, or Maobama wouldn't matter as much. But our states are dependent on the federal government. Until we can fix that, we will continue this cycle of bad president, slightly better but still bad pres, worst pres, who do I vote for now pres.

Just MHO.

Mostly I think you are correct, the Fed should not be running the show but I also think it is the reality at this time. I agree 100% what needs to be fixed is the States looking to the Fed to do their job for them and the Fed looking to usurp those powers from the States. Unfortunately the States voluntarily relinquish control to Big Brother and power accumulated is never relinquished. If our country still operated in the fashion intended the current or future President would be substantially less important though as you stated too many accept the centralization of power as "normal" and/or desirable.

[buffalobo]

Then voting for the right president would be just the thing.

The right president would step out and lead. He would follow the constitution, veto legislation that grows govt and wastes our money. Speak out about personal responsibility, states rights, limited govt and then take what actions he could to facilitate it.

As long as the lesser of two evils from one of the two socialist parties is elected, the path of limited gov and individual liberty will not be travelled.

[Sharpienads]

Then voting for the right president would be just the thing.

The right president would step out and lead. He would follow the constitution, veto legislation that grows govt and wastes our money. Speak out about personal responsibility, states rights, limited govt and then take what actions he could to facilitate it.

As long as the lesser of two evils from one of the two socialist parties is elected, the path of limited gov and individual liberty will not be travelled.

I can agree with you to a point. But what happens when the right president doesn't get re-elected or serves two terms? Then the next president and/or congress slowly or not so slowly reverses everything that was done? We'll be right back where we started. That's why it has to be a movement that starts with the individual and goes up.

Geez, everything would be so much simpler if everybody just followed the Constitution.

[HoneyBadger]

Geez, everything would be so much simpler if everybody just followed the Constitution.

http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/GifGuide/clapping/busey_clapping.gif