Finally got that voting done!

[Ronin13]

Wait a minute. . . bored at work and just glanced through this thread again. So you guys think that Johnson has less of a chance than Roseanne AND he'll be a spoiler for Romney. Just how many votes are you guys thinking Roseanne is going to get?

I don't think right-leaning independents and libertarians will vote for Roseanne... They're more likely to waste their vote on GJ. Neither will get very many votes, barely a blip on the radar.

Given those 2 as an only option, I'd vote Rosie....the other douchebag has shown that he fucks everything up that he's involved.

MAYBE rosie won't suck as bad

Lesbians don't suck....

[Inconel710]

Oh, I held my nose and voted for Romney (it might give me more time to prepare for the eventual hard landing), but it was Libertarian down the line after that. I was quite happy to see four Libertarian candidates for various offices here in COS.

The whining from the Republicans about Gary Johnson possibly ruining their party is what's funny. The subject didn't even come up until some Republican organization started the idea that GJ could throw the election. Considering how well the two ruling parties have setup the system to ensure they stay in power it's been quite funny to see them piss and moan about how "If you don't vote for my turd sandwich, the giant douche is going to win, wah, wah, wah".

[Ronin13]

Oh, I held my nose and voted for Romney (it might give me more time to prepare for the eventual hard landing), but it was Libertarian down the line after that. I was quite happy to see four Libertarian candidates for various offices here in COS.

The whining from the Republicans about Gary Johnson possibly ruining their party is what's funny. The subject didn't even come up until some Republican organization started the idea that GJ could throw the election. Considering how well the two ruling parties have setup the system to ensure they stay in power it's been quite funny to see them piss and moan about how "If you don't vote for my turd sandwich, the giant douche is going to win, wah, wah, wah".

I don't see us whining, I see us constantly (and I use the word constantly loosely) trying to impart a little logic on the whole GJ subject... Not a single 3rd party candidate has ever received 10% of the vote, but in an election that is close (let's say 3%) and the dem wins by 2%, that 3% that went to the 3rd party could have easily ensured a rep win... That's what we're saying is the case here. It wasn't that GJ could throw the election, it's that people throwing their vote into the abyss that is the 3rd (or 4th) party that has cost the election for one party or the other in the past. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the libertarians have a shot, but it doesn't start with the president and go from there, it starts smaller... Like you said, local elections (COS- good for you guys!), state elections, congressional seats, etc.

I'm getting a little sick and tired of the same group of us who understand how the system works and how to push for a 3rd party to get some votes (like I said, local, state, congress, THEN president) incessantly repeating this over and over and over again... Do you think we're repeating it so much so we don't forget? Do you think we like saying this in 3/10 threads on the subject? No... We'd love it if you guys would think a little outside of your selfish, simplistic, eff-the-two-party-system view and see that "voting with your conscience" is most certainly not going to get rid of Obama, and that yeah, the only person who stands a snowball's chance in hell of beating Obama is Romney. It's not ideal, it's not the absolute best thing for America, but name one president in the last 16 years that has been all that "good" for America. I honestly believe we can make it some day to the point where a 3rd party can get 15-25% of the vote, and within the next 12 years, but, like has been said so many goddamn times already this year is not that year... so please, chill with it already.

[Inconel710]

I don't see us whining, I see us constantly (and I use the word constantly loosely) trying to impart a little logic on the whole GJ subject... Not a single 3rd party candidate has ever received 10% of the vote (uh, Ross Perot in '92 - 18.9%), but in an election that is close (let's say 3%) and the dem wins by 2%, that 3% that went to the 3rd party could have easily ensured a rep win... (Thanks for reaffirming my point) That's what we're saying is the case here. It wasn't that GJ could throw the election, (That's not what you just said!) it's that people throwing their vote into the abyss that is the 3rd (or 4th) party that has cost the election for one party or the other in the past. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the libertarians have a shot, but it doesn't start with the president and go from there, it starts smaller... Like you said, local elections (COS- good for you guys!), state elections, congressional seats, etc.

I'm getting a little sick and tired of the same group of us who understand how the system works and how to push for a 3rd party to get some votes (like I said, local, state, congress, THEN president) incessantly repeating this over and over and over again... Do you think we're repeating it so much so we don't forget? Do you think we like saying this in 3/10 threads on the subject? No... We'd love it if you guys would think a little outside of your selfish, simplistic, eff-the-two-party-system view and see that "voting with your conscience" is most certainly not going to get rid of Obama, and that yeah, the only person who stands a snowball's chance in hell of beating Obama is Romney. It's not ideal, it's not the absolute best thing for America, but name one president in the last 16 years that has been all that "good" for America. I honestly believe we can make it some day to the point where a 3rd party can get 15-25% of the vote, and within the next 12 years, but, like has been said so many goddamn times already this year is not that year... so please, chill with it already.

So, you're calling the guy that just admitted to voting for Romney that he's selfish and simplistic? A simple "thanks man" would have sufficed.

No, I get it - you posted in a knee jerk reaction to the "L" word. The real problem for Libertarians is that their natural allies are conservatives, but conservatives are in a co-dependant relationship with the Republican party (kind of like African-Americans and the Democrats). They're convinced that if they don't vote for the R's then things are going to absolutely horrible instead of realizing they're just drinking a different flavor of Kool-Aid(TM).

For me it comes down to principles - I voted for the most Liberty possible this election. If Colorado wasn't as close as it is, I'd have voted for Gary Johnson. But here and now, that would have been counter to my goal. Because you are right - in Colorado today, a vote for GJ could throw the election to Obama much like Ralph Nader led to Gore's defeat in Florida in 2000. Hence, the holding of the nose and the voting for Romney. Just don't try to convince me that Romney winning means the skies will clear and be filled with leprechauns, unicorns, a balanced budget, Social Security reform, or other mythical beasts.

I would like to see fellow conservatives stop the name-calling, because it just makes you sound like a "tolerant" liberal that won't tolerate anyone that disagrees with them.

[Ronin13]

So, you're calling the guy that just admitted to voting for Romney that he's selfish and simplistic? A simple "thanks man" would have sufficed.

No, I get it - you posted in a knee jerk reaction to the "L" word. The real problem for Libertarians is that their natural allies are conservatives, but conservatives are in a co-dependant relationship with the Republican party (kind of like African-Americans and the Democrats). They're convinced that if they don't vote for the R's then things are going to absolutely horrible instead of realizing they're just drinking a different flavor of Kool-Aid(TM).

For me it comes down to principles - I voted for the most Liberty possible this election. If Colorado wasn't as close as it is, I'd have voted for Gary Johnson. But here and now, that would have been counter to my goal. Because you are right - in Colorado today, a vote for GJ could throw the election to Obama much like Ralph Nader led to Gore's defeat in Florida in 2000. Hence, the holding of the nose and the voting for Romney. Just don't try to convince me that Romney winning means the skies will clear and be filled with leprechauns, unicorns, a balanced budget, Social Security reform, or other mythical beasts.

I would like to see fellow conservatives stop the name-calling, because it just makes you sound like a "tolerant" liberal that won't tolerate anyone that disagrees with them.

Really? It wasn't the fact that you said "YES! I voted for Romney, Bye bye Obama!" No, you had to say "I held my nose." But thanks for voting smart and against Obama with the only realistic shot we have. I'm not name calling or saying anything bad about libertarians, I'm only stating that they continue this high and mighty campaign where they think that we're all "chugging down the kool-aid" because we continue voting in the two-party system. All I have to say to that is: Give me a good, solid, 3rd party candidate for congress (both here in CO and in D.C.), then let's get some changes done in legislation that mean more freedom and more closely following the constitution instead of trying to find ways to "work around it". THEN, let's get a 3rd party president that will actually bring us back to glory. But this whole "If Romney wins it won't fix it magically over night"... I agree, but it's a push in the right direction. I actually think he can do our economy and debt problems some good, he ran businesses for crying out loud- you don't mange the business's money well, you go out of business.

And I have in the past, along with this year, voted for a Republican President... But my beliefs are more Constitutionalist (or Jeffersonian) in nature and more correctly align with Libertarian or Tea Party, but I see it as an uphill battle to try to get people away from the two-party system, but I'm not giving up, it's just we gotta start small, you can't expect a 3rd party candidate to get elected to the WH without some victories at the state and congressional level. This year it just came down to "Gotta get rid of Obama, and Romney is really the only viable chance for that." I promise you this, next state election we have, I'd love to see some L candidates on there and I'd also love to help that happen!

[Aloha_Shooter]

If Colorado wasn't as close as it is, I'd have voted for Gary Johnson. But here and now, that would have been counter to my goal. Because you are right - in Colorado today, a vote for GJ could throw the election to Obama much like Ralph Nader led to Gore's defeat in Florida in 2000. Hence, the holding of the nose and the voting for Romney.

^ This. Bottom line, no need to call names or anything else when the real enemy are the Marxists and Stalinists.

Just to correct Ronin here, Theodore Roosevelt got 27% of the popular vote and 88 electoral votes 100 years ago in the election of 1912. The Republican candidate, William Howard Taft, got 23% of the popular vote and 8 electoral votes. However, even TR's run ended up just handing the election to the Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, with the abortion called the League of Nations and America's effed-up entry into World War I as a result.

[USAFGopherMike]

Except Australia is right on par with the UK in terms of anti-gun legislation and mentality (but not nearly as bad, still pretty shitty).

hghclsswhitetrsh, that was by far the funniest description I've heard in a while when it comes to libertarians...

I was getting at the job opportunity.. and I'd probably live on a sailboat so I could keep my guns there and just leave if it got ugly.

[Ronin13]

I was getting at the job opportunity.. and I'd probably live on a sailboat so I could keep my guns there and just leave if it got ugly.

A Marine buddy of mine got to go to Australia a few years back (2000 I believe) and he said they have women there that would literally fight other women for the attention of an American man.... That's the only reason I'd go there.
Besides, f*** AUS- they have over 500 species of animal that can kill you faster than you can clean an AR.

[Aloha_Shooter]

I have one thing to say about Australia: 1970s Olivia Newton-John. 'Nuff said.

[Ronin13]

I have one thing to say about Australia: 1970s Olivia Newton-John. 'Nuff said.

Forget Olivia Newton John... Rachael Taylor and Holly Valance!