Could 2012 be America's last election

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SAnd

The liberals have been working from at least the mid '90s to have people in place to control the results of the votes. I'll quote Uncle Joe again-

"You know, comrades," says Stalin, "that I think in regard to this: I consider it completely unimportant who will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this - who will count the votes, and how."

The libs control most of the vote counters or the people that rule on the votes.

---

I guess that's a change since 2000, then? I was under the impression that a significant amount of the vote counting machines were manufactured by a company owned by a staunch Republican, and that the tinfoil hat liberals were complaining that those machines could count the votes according to the software, which didn't have to have a one-to-one match with the actual vote input.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BPTactical

But until we can get an "us" candidate elected we have to make the best choice of what is available.
As somebody stated pre crash, this upcoming erection is like choosing which STD you want.
Obumbler is AIDs, a death sentence.
Romney, the clap, maybe herpes. Annoying as hell but not deadly if kept in check.

---

See, you're doing it again.

Obama is death and Mittens is a slight burning when you pee but treatable. I disagree because you're not factoring house control into your decision. To me, Mittens is more dangerous with Republican control than Obama is w/Republican control. Pro-Republican people don't want to talk about that though. They want to act like Bush was a godsend compared to Obama and I don't see it that way. He did as much if not more bad in his term than Obama has. In fact, Obama is using a lot of what Bush started to do what he's doing but so many people don't want to talk about that. Just vote Republican and all that ales you will be solved. /sarcasm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jer

This is where I get frustrated. When people talk about Ron Paul potentially being president all you hear is that he won't be able to get anything done because the president has no real power. Then, when people talk about Obama he has the power to turn the country into a socialistic nation and undo everything that's been done since the country was created. He has that power mind you even though he's working against a Republican house. Then, when people consider Mittens Romney he suddenly can do no wrong even though he has the backing of a Republican house. Okay. This all makes sense.

Face it, the ONLY option to not further destroy this country with political business as usual just announced he is no longer actively campaigning in states that haven't yet voted. We continue to elect politicians that are in the pockets of big business and have ZERO concern for the people (other than re-election) and we keep getting what we deserve. Bush fucked us. Obama fucked us. Romney will just be more of the same. You people need to realize it's no longer D v R but Us v Them because they sure have and so far they're WAY ahead in the score building an insurmountable lead heading toward the end of the game. As long as we're focused on fighting over what the batting order is they're hitting homerun after homerun. They invented the game they're playing and nobody on our side even cares to learn the rules of the game.

---

I'm with you on this. Big Business/Old Money isn't going to let any changes that wil threaten them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jer

This is where I get frustrated. When people talk about Ron Paul potentially being president all you hear is that he won't be able to get anything done because the president has no real power. Then, when people talk about Obama he has the power to turn the country into a socialistic nation and undo everything that's been done since the country was created. He has that power mind you even though he's working against a Republican house. Then, when people consider Mittens Romney he suddenly can do no wrong even though he has the backing of a Republican house. Okay. This all makes sense.

Face it, the ONLY option to not further destroy this country with political business as usual just announced he is no longer actively campaigning in states that haven't yet voted. We continue to elect politicians that are in the pockets of big business and have ZERO concern for the people (other than re-election) and we keep getting what we deserve. Bush fucked us. Obama fucked us. Romney will just be more of the same. You people need to realize it's no longer D v R but Us v Them because they sure have and so far they're WAY ahead in the score building an insurmountable lead heading toward the end of the game. As long as we're focused on fighting over what the batting order is they're hitting homerun after homerun. They invented the game they're playing and nobody on our side even cares to learn the rules of the game.

---

well said Jer. We should have a beer sometime. Feeling forced (and in some ways quite legitimately due to the system set up that gets people nominated) to vote the lesser of two evils is why we are in this mess, and kid yourself not this is a very deep mess, going back to at least the civil war, being Americans and naturally distrustful of governments it has taken much longer and many of our forefathers have fought the good fight, but too many others did what they were told they could hoping to make a difference knowing that whether they choose coke or pepsi it will still rot your teeth, just in different ways. I agree with the earlier poster that mentioned that only 20% supported the revolutionary's (and much less actually took up arms) then, and I fear that wont be nearly enough this time.

As I've stated before the third parties have done an absolutely abysmal job of promoting themselves and their views. Of course it doesn't help when the mass media paints them as clowns and then ignores them. Third parties have to work through that and they just don't.

I'd prefer to vote for a third party but I know that at least 30% of the voting citizens will vote (R) and my goal is to see Obama out of office so I'm voting (R) to help realize my goal. If I voted for a third party my vote would be a selfish exercise in futility because no third party is going to beat Obama in 2012.

Mitt is a horrible candidate but he is better than Obama so I'll compromise just to see Obama, Obama's czars, Eric Holder, and all of Obama's other appointments and pending appointments end their evil work on January 20, 2013.

Third parties need to start working on 2016 yesterday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roberth

I'm voting (R) to help realize my goal.

Mitt is a horrible candidate...

---

Our founding fathers would be SO proud of you. After they risked death to form this free nation you're not willing to risk loss to choose the right candidate to run it. And people openly admit this and criticize those who don't follow this asinine logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roberth

If I voted for a third party my vote would be a selfish exercise in futility because no third party is going to beat Obama in 2012.

---

Not as long as everyone who has a crystal ball doesn't even bother voting on them. If everyone just voted for who they felt was the right person (not the lesser of two evils) we might all be surprised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jer

Our founding fathers would be SO proud of you. After they risked death to form this free nation you're not willing to risk loss to choose the right candidate to run it. And people openly admit this and criticize those who don't follow this asinine logic.

---

Ok, Now you're just being a dick.

There's nothing unpatriotic or wrong with voting tactically.

I'm not thrilled with "Mittens" either, but its asinine to claim that he's only "Obama Lite" ... Obama is actively engaged in the destruction of our country and free market capitalism. No Mitt isn't as rock-ribbed conservative as I'd like, but he's at least pro-American and pro-capitalist.


I get the old "the lesser of two evils is still evil" cliche, but that's simpleton bumper-sticker thinking ... so in order to avoid the lesser of two evils you'll help the greater of two evils?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zundfolge

Ok, Now you're just being a dick.

There's nothing unpatriotic or wrong with voting tactically.

I'm not thrilled with "Mittens" either, but its asinine to claim that he's only "Obama Lite" ... Obama is actively engaged in the destruction of our country and free market capitalism. No Mitt isn't as rock-ribbed conservative as I'd like, but he's at least pro-American and pro-capitalist.


I get the old "the lesser of two evils is still evil" cliche, but that's simpleton bumper-sticker thinking ... so in order to avoid the lesser of two evils you'll help the greater of two evils?

---

I'm being a dick for pointing out the obvious?

I'll vote for the right man for the job regardless of party affiliation. Voting the lesser of two evils has worked real well for us so why buck the system, right?

i love talk of patriotism, from guys who never served their country. its all about me me me me me. but dont ask me to do anything.

i will bet the founding fathers would be proud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jer

I'm being a dick for pointing out the obvious?

---

No you're being a dick for questioning the intelligence and patriotism of people that just happen to disagree with you.

It doesn't help that you're also wrong [insert missing smilie here]