Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: AUChizad on November 06, 2012, 09:16:17 AM
-
Yeah, I'm aware before I post this that it will not be well received.
I'm aware that every single person here is voting for Romney.
In my opinion, contrary to popular belief, if you live in a red or blue state (pretty much everyone here lives in a red one), the only vote you can make that actually can make a difference is for Gary Johnson.
5% of the popular vote will get him into the debates in 2016. That's a very attainable goal, as many polls have predicted him to get right around that percentage.
http://youtu.be/bS7vCRlDC6A
A vote for Romney in Alabama will literally do nothing. There is a 100% chance that Romney gets the electoral college vote, regardless of how you vote.
Voting for Johnson is voting for an actual change.
I thank you for your time, now unleash your vitriol.
-
I'm aware that every single person here is voting for Romney.
Nope.
I'm voting for Johnson for the very reasons you listed.
I despise Obama, dislike Romney, know that Romney will dominate Alabama, and want my vote to count for something.
If anything, just to throw a wrench into the two-party debate system.
The only thing that does scare me is which party is Johnson likely to harm in 2016? Republicans and Democrats equally? Just Republicans? Just Democrats?
Most likely, just Republicans.
-
Nope.
I'm voting for Johnson for the very reasons you listed.
I despise Obama, dislike Romney, know that Romney will dominate Alabama, and want my vote to count for something.
If anything, just to throw a wrench into the two-party debate system.
The only thing that does scare me is which party is Johnson likely to harm in 2016? Republicans and Democrats equally? Just Republicans? Just Democrats?
Most likely, just Republicans.
Not so fast, my friend.
I think allowing the Libertarian candidate to actually voice their positions to the American public in a debate format, will educate the voter much more on their positions.
Positions on marijuana legalization, gay marriage, and anti-war stances could and should reel in just as many Democrats as the small government economic platform and second amendment issues will pull in Republicans
-
No vitriol here. But I do remember Gary Johnson being in the debates in the early stages of the GOP primary. He came across to me as someone high as a kite and as bland as wallpaper paste. I like a lot of his positions on economics but he probably needs to be a little more charming and populist on the big stage.
I think he was dropped from the debates because he was never polling more than 1% which probably goes back to his quirky personality. I don't think that is any knock on how he would govern BUT it's hard to get noticed and/or elected without some kind of appeal to the electorate. I would actually have no issue with him being sort of economic cabinet member under Romney. Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich too. I want some proven economic heads up there because that's about what it's gonna take to unscrew this mess.
-
No vitriol here. But I do remember Gary Johnson being in the debates in the early stages of the GOP primary. He came across to me as someone high as a kite and as bland as wallpaper paste. I like a lot of his positions on economics but he probably needs to be a little more charming and populist on the big stage.
I think he was dropped from the debates because he was never polling more than 1% which probably goes back to his quirky personality. I don't think that is any knock on how he would govern BUT it's hard to get noticed and/or elected without some kind of appeal to the electorate. I would actually have no issue with him being sort of economic cabinet member under Romney. Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich too. I want some proven economic heads up there because that's about what it's gonna take to unscrew this mess.
True. I don't really like Johnson at all. I'm not even that big of a fan of Libertarianism. However, I do feel that there needs to be a real catalyst for change. Spending is way too high. Lying seems to be accepted. Stupidity is being pandered to.
If I really had my choice, I'd say voting should only be allowed to those that pass a certain test. Maybe even limit it to land owners and those with an adequate credit score.
Hell, I may even be okay with a monarchy as long as the king has sufficient knowledge of theology and geometry. (+1 to those that get the reference)
-
Everybody loves an idealist....until he puts the rest of us in danger.
-
When the Libertarian party demonstrates to me that they can actually win an election then I might consider voting for one of their candidates. I've said it before you can tout your position all day long but at the end of the day you've got to win elections and they can't do it. Their message is not resonating with the electorate despite what they want you to think which I've also pointed out before. You have a political party that has been around for 40 years and what have they accomplished in that time? How have they progressed?
The Republican Party by contrast started in 1854 (an obvious time when there was less "connectivity" and no internet and no news media outside of newspapers and no alternate media and no real mass media) and in 6 years elected a President and a majority to the Congress. They've elected 16 presidents since then and currently hold 47 of 100 seats in the US Senate, 242 of 435 seats in the US House, 30 of 50 Governorships, and over 4,000 of the approx. 7,000 state upper and lower house seats despite the "factions" within the party ranks. Results get votes and get attention.
-
When the Libertarian party demonstrates to me that they can actually win an election then I might consider voting for one of their candidates. I've said it before you can tout your position all day long but at the end of the day you've got to win elections and they can't do it. Their message is not resonating with the electorate despite what they want you to think which I've also pointed out before. You have a political party that has been around for 40 years and what have they accomplished in that time? How have they progressed?
The Republican Party by contrast started in 1854 (an obvious time when there was less "connectivity" and no internet and no news media outside of newspapers and no alternate media and no real mass media) and in 6 years elected a President and a majority to the Congress. They've elected 16 presidents since then and currently hold 47 of 100 seats in the US Senate, 242 of 435 seats in the US House, 30 of 50 Governorships, and over 4,000 of the approx. 7,000 state upper and lower house seats despite the "factions" within the party ranks. Results get votes and get attention.
I have stated before that the problem with the Libertarian Party (just my opinion and beliefs) is that they can't stay together, don't articulate their positions, and shoot for the moon instead of trying to start small and build up.
Too many sects of Libertarianism out there, they fight amongst themselves, they scream, yell and can be rude when trying to explain their positions to people. Instead of trying to win some local elections, getting candidates in the state house they immediately run someone for POTUS. Start small, grass roots, stick together and explain your stances in a clam rational way. It would help them get a long way.
Don't get me wrong, I love a lot of the Libertarian Party stances, but since they aren't electable I look for the Republican candidate that will get me most of what I want. I would rather have 70% of what I want than 0%.
-
When the Libertarian party demonstrates to me that they can actually win an election then I might consider voting for one of their candidates. I've said it before you can tout your position all day long but at the end of the day you've got to win elections and they can't do it. Their message is not resonating with the electorate despite what they want you to think which I've also pointed out before. You have a political party that has been around for 40 years and what have they accomplished in that time? How have they progressed?
The Republican Party by contrast started in 1854 (an obvious time when there was less "connectivity" and no internet and no news media outside of newspapers and no alternate media and no real mass media) and in 6 years elected a President and a majority to the Congress. They've elected 16 presidents since then and currently hold 47 of 100 seats in the US Senate, 242 of 435 seats in the US House, 30 of 50 Governorships, and over 4,000 of the approx. 7,000 state upper and lower house seats despite the "factions" within the party ranks. Results get votes and get attention.
Your supporting statements actually seem to support voting for Johnson. As long as their message is being suppressed by the MSM, they won't get results. Put them in a debate? Game changer.
And that's the goal for 2012. Get them in the debate in 2016. No one with an ounce of sanity thinks that Johnson can win this election. But that's not the goal. The goal is 5%. That is attainable, and that will change the two party death-grip on American politics.
-
Why waste a vote?
-
Your supporting statements actually seem to support voting for Johnson. As long as their message is being suppressed by the MSM, they won't get results. Put them in a debate? Game changer.
And that's the goal for 2012. Get them in the debate in 2016. No one with an ounce of sanity thinks that Johnson can win this election. But that's not the goal. The goal is 5%. That is attainable, and that will change the two party death-grip on American politics.
Don't mistake me for being a Libertarian supporter however nor do I mean to be provocative. To put it simply, I think that their message IS getting out and NOT being suppressed; it's just NOT being accepted by the voters.
-
I have stated before that the problem with the Libertarian Party (just my opinion and beliefs) is that they can't stay together, don't articulate their positions, and shoot for the moon instead of trying to start small and build up.
Too many sects of Libertarianism out there, they fight amongst themselves, they scream, yell and can be rude when trying to explain their positions to people. Instead of trying to win some local elections, getting candidates in the state house they immediately run someone for POTUS. Start small, grass roots, stick together and explain your stances in a clam rational way. It would help them get a long way.
Don't get me wrong, I love a lot of the Libertarian Party stances, but since they aren't electable I look for the Republican candidate that will get me most of what I want. I would rather have 70% of what I want than 0%.
I'm having deja-vu-vu...I think we've both made these exact same posts before...
-
I'm having deja-vu-vu...I think we've both made these exact same posts before...
Pretty sure we had this exact same conversation with bottomfeder.
-
Why waste a vote?
I might've said that but it seems to cause apoplectic seizures on the topic of libertarianism in this forum at times...no offense to libertarians.
-
Your supporting statements actually seem to support voting for Johnson. As long as their message is being suppressed by the MSM, they won't get results. Put them in a debate? Game changer.
And that's the goal for 2012. Get them in the debate in 2016. No one with an ounce of sanity thinks that Johnson can win this election. But that's not the goal. The goal is 5%. That is attainable, and that will change the two party death-grip on American politics.
I hate to make it sound like circular reasoning but one of my points is virtually the same as AUT1 in that you have to "start small, grass roots, stick together, explain positions in a calm, reasoned way" win elections, then win more elections, then get invited to serious debates, expand from there. The Libertarian Party has made absolutely zero progress in 40 years of political work. This is not because the message is being suppressed.
-
Johnson and Benedict Arnold Chris Christie could have cost Romney the election in Oh, Vir and Fla.
-
Johnson and Benedict Arnold Chris Christie could have cost Romney the election in Oh, Vir and Fla.
I don't buy it.
I would argue that the vast, vast majority of people that voted for Johnson did so first and foremost because he was not only their #1 choice, but their only choice. It was between him and not voting. They were not considering, "Yeah, but I'm going to vote for Johnson, but I really feel strongly that I want candidate X to win." ESPECIALLY if they lived in OH, VA, or FL. People aren't that dumb. They know that this was going to be a close election and that in those particular states it was completely up for grabs. Furthermore, even assuming 100% of the Johnson votes would have voted for either Obama or Romney, this assumption that 100% of those votes would have gone to Romney is patently absurd. As I said before, the anti-war and decriminalization of marijuana platforms were far more central to his campaign than any economic aspect. And if the economy was that much more important to you than the very liberal civil liberty policies, you probably definitely voted for Romney.
Being mad at Johnson voters for Romney losing is just as pointless as being mad at Obama voters for Romney losing.
Furthermore, people shitting on Chris Christie for simply complimenting the President of the United States for reacting well in the wake of Sandy is more of that ugly hyper-partisanship that is tearing this country apart far faster than any exaggerated "slide into socialism" that incurred by reelecting Obama. And yes, I would be saying the exact same thing if the roles were reversed. He's the president of the United States, people, not fucking Hitler. When he does things right, it's ok to say that out loud. This country needs more bi-partisan harmony, not less of it.
-
This country needs more bi-partisan harmony, not less of it.
What this country needs are politicians that do not mortgage the country.
On both sides.
-
...
This country needs more bi-partisan harmony, not less of it.
That is the job of the Chief Executive Officer of the United States to coordinate and nurture-along in Congress but because he's an arrogant, partisan hack that isn't going happen (of course His Royal Majesty can always skirt the constitution, Congress, and his duty and issue another 900+ executive edicts).
-
What the hell has he done right!
-
What the hell has he done right!
Haven't you heard? "Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive!"
-
Haven't you heard? "Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive!"
Most every big thing he has taken credit for was put into motion during the dreaded Bush years!
Except obamacare. I bet when it goes to shit he'll claim that most of it came form someone else.
-
I don't buy it.
I would argue that the vast, vast majority of people that voted for Johnson did so first and foremost because he was not only their #1 choice, but their only choice. It was between him and not voting. They were not considering, "Yeah, but I'm going to vote for Johnson, but I really feel strongly that I want candidate X to win." ESPECIALLY if they lived in OH, VA, or FL. People aren't that dumb. They know that this was going to be a close election and that in those particular states it was completely up for grabs. Furthermore, even assuming 100% of the Johnson votes would have voted for either Obama or Romney, this assumption that 100% of those votes would have gone to Romney is patently absurd. As I said before, the anti-war and decriminalization of marijuana platforms were far more central to his campaign than any economic aspect. And if the economy was that much more important to you than the very liberal civil liberty policies, you probably definitely voted for Romney.
Being mad at Johnson voters for Romney losing is just as pointless as being mad at Obama voters for Romney losing.
Furthermore, people shitting on Chris Christie for simply complimenting the President of the United States for reacting well in the wake of Sandy is more of that ugly hyper-partisanship that is tearing this country apart far faster than any exaggerated "slide into socialism" that incurred by reelecting Obama. And yes, I would be saying the exact same thing if the roles were reversed. He's the president of the United States, people, not fucking Hitler. When he does things right, it's ok to say that out loud. This country needs more bi-partisan harmony, not less of it.
The combo of them was what I was meaning to infer. There are direct correlations with Christie bringing down his momentum and numbers moreso than Johnson. You can see the polls up until Sandy and Christies actions and then during/after. Not really debating bipartisanship since there is nothing wrong with that. The timing of it was questionable and the fact that Christie turned down Romney just 20 mins away from Trenton and the next day mooches it up with Bruce on stage was just really a fail. Especially when he cited the reason as turning down Romney as he had to tour the ravaged state. He didn't do that though during the same time. Instead he lived out his boyhood dream of meeting Springsteen. Just wasn't the best move IMHO.
-
The combo of them was what I was meaning to infer. There are direct correlations with Christie bringing down his momentum and numbers moreso than Johnson. You can see the polls up until Sandy and Christies actions and then during/after. Not really debating bipartisanship since there is nothing wrong with that. The timing of it was questionable and the fact that Christie turned down Romney just 20 mins away from Trenton and the next day mooches it up with Bruce on stage was just really a fail. Especially when he cited the reason as turning down Romney as he had to tour the ravaged state. He didn't do that though during the same time. Instead he lived out his boyhood dream of meeting Springsteen. Just wasn't the best move IMHO.
May the fat bastard choke on a chicken bone and suffer while waiting for his obamacare appointment!
He most definitely made a difference in the polls because of his actions.