NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Newsworthy => Topic started by: unfy on October 26, 2012, 02:33:46 PM
-
Just in case anyone's forgotten:
Mitt Romney: I Support Gun Control for the Plebs, but not for me (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiAW-OAp8pI#)
>:D
-
ugghhhh, why did you have to do that to me, Mitt?
-
I would sugget you investigate what really happened with this law in MA. The PRO-firearms groups were on board with the whole gig.... That being said (and tired of voting for the lesser of two evils time and again) make your vote count for Romney.
-
I would sugget you investigate what really happened with this law in MA. The PRO-firearms groups were on board with the whole gig.... That being said (and tired of voting for the lesser of two evils time and again) make your vote count for Romney.
Bullit you are correct the largest organization in Mass. is on record talking about this, They already had an assault weapons ban and many other very strict gun laws on the books when Romney took office. The bill that Romney signed actually reduced the impediments to gun owners, this was a bill requested by the firearms community and did away with many problems caused by the conflicts in all the other laws. Would they have liked to do away with the assault weapons ban, yes, but they knew there was no chance of that getting through their state house.
-
That being said (and tired of voting for the lesser of two evils time and again) make your vote count for Romney.
Sorry, but that's gotta make most everyone laugh.
Particularly in context of this conversation.
The bill changes renewal time from 4 years to 6.... cutting the cost from $25 a year (annuitized) to $16. I'll grant that's kind of nice.
Grants a 90 day grace period on getting things renewed. Seems a bit 'meh' to me - I can't do that with my driver's license, vehicle registration, etc.
Peace officer provides a receipt of taken firearms (handy).
Review board: not a huge fan myself. Having recourse is handy, but who makes up that board ? Who's to say they aren't all anti-gun peoples etc ? They do seem to be pulled from all sorts of bureaucratic offices, though... so that may or may not be good.
There's a bit dealing with prior criminal history. It's a bit... confusing to read sadly. From what I've gathered on it, it allows juvenile offenses to no longer be an immediate no ?
Continues the 'assault weapons ban'.
.... This is is deemed a huge win, how ?
The text of the bill:
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2004/Chapter150 (http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2004/Chapter150)
As for those that love Romney and hate Obama, I have a very simple question:
Can you name 5 policy differences between the two ?
-
As for those that love Romney and hate Obama, I have a very simple question:
Can you name 5 policy differences between the two ?
Taxes, healthcare, defense spending, abortion, energy
-
Taxes, healthcare, defense spending, abortion, energy
Hey look, one word vague answers that are as rather meaningless.
Taxes: Both are pro big gov't, and as governor Romney got around some of his pledges to not increases taxes by instead adding on 'fees' and such. Also, Obama claimed to not add taxes and has done otherwise. Hate to 'convict' Romeny before he has a chance to make good on his claim... but... Differences are where ?
Healthcare: Romney Care vs Obama Care ? Sounds awefully similar to me.
Defense Spending: Looking at all of the charts and historical records concerning the history of US "defense spending", everything looks to be increasing over time - including during the Obama Administration. Looks to be a shallow talking point with no bite.
Abortion: now there's a funny one. How many times has Romney changed views and how unclear has his position been in the last few weeks that it's required a lot of media attention ?
Energy: see... this one, I *MIGHT* be able to give to you as a good solid answer. You'd have to be more detailed though :).
-
Ok we get it, you're not thrilled with Romney. Join the club, as I don't know anyone that is- so 'stirring the pot' is juvenile imo. Romney is clearly not a conservative nor a champion of individual liberty..... I still voted for him (early, obviously) and gladly would 3-4 more times if I lived in Chicago. Obongo is a despicable socialist and the single greatest threat to America. Claiming there is no difference between the 2 isn't credible. Enjoy voting for Gary Johnson or Ron Paul or whoever else you so choose.
-
Vote for who ever you want to, but a vote that isn't for Willard is one less vote that Obama has to overcome.
That's a scenario that scares the living daylights out of me.
-
"Stirring the pot" is a tad excessive don't you think ?
I'm attempting to get people to think for themselves and to ask if a given candidate truly matches their own beliefs, and to possibly do their own research. Also - to get beyond fluffly shallow talking points.
What ideals do you find favorable ?
When you compare those ideals to the history of a given elected official (or a person running for a position) - are they similar to your own ?
Is the platform that person running on actually have any meat and potatoes or is it just buzz word compliant with no substance ?
Does the history of that person coincide with their proposed platform ?
Claiming there is no difference between the 2 isn't credible
See, I'd love to agree with you ... but I can name maybe only three differences myself, and they're not earth shattering. You sadly also didn't name any differences :(. I really really really want someone to make me have some faith in the guy, I really do.
But concerning 'the two' -> one is running under a republican banner, the other under a democrat banner. Outside of that, where are the differences ? We'll skip the implication this implies concerning parties on a national level.
I imagine most everyone here considers themselves a republican. They have a certain core set of beliefs and feel quite strongly about them. That's great! Comparing person to person, probably most of us share 90% of beliefs.
My problem is I don't see any of those beliefs being represented by Romney.
Just because he's under the republican flag and because the republican party's platform used to coincide with my own beliefs, doesn't mean that he's going to magically turn into *MY* representative despite all evidence to the contrary.
Wish in one hand, and what in the other ?
In no particular order:
[ ] Strong defender of the 2nd Amendment
[ ] Reduce government spending
[ ] Reduce government bureaucracy
[ ] Reduce our intervening in foreign affairs
[ ] Reduce government involvement in my personal affairs (economic or social)
[ ] Reduce federal government stepping on states rights
[ ] Secure border / assist States in dealing with it
[ ] Reduce government interference with businesses
[ ] Not a Keynsian economics person
As noted, I can't check any of those for Romney.
If there's not much difference between the two then what's the difference for voting for one or the other ? If the end result is the same... ???
-
5 real good reasons to vote Romney.
1. Justice Scalia just turned 78
2. Justice Kennedy will turn 78 later this year
3. Justice Breyer was 76 in August
4. Justice Ginsburg just turned 81. In addition, she is reportedly quite ill.
5. Justice Stephens has already said he is ready to retire and is just waiting for Obama to be reelected.
The next president could appoint as many as FIVE new Supreme Court Justices over the next four years.
-
5 real good reasons to vote Romney.
1. Justice Scalia just turned 78
2. Justice Kennedy will turn 78 later this year
3. Justice Breyer was 76 in August
4. Justice Ginsburg just turned 81. In addition, she is reportedly quite ill.
5. Justice Stephens has already said he is ready to retire and is just waiting for Obama to be reelected.
The next president could appoint as many as FIVE new Supreme Court Justices over the next four years.
Not a bad argument for 'lesser of two evils' hehe.
-
Not at all thrilled with Romney - so my vote is ABO - Anybody But Obama. And I feel that my vote HAS to count towards defeating Obama - so I can't waste that on Ron Paul. A vote for ANYONE other than Romney this election is a vote FOR Obama - and that is just unthinkable to me.
Four more reasons are completely unneeded.
-
And yes I realize it's close to election, and I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind... but I want ya'll to think about it. Really think. If you look at a man's history and listen to his rhetoric and find it wanting... then... what are you to do ?
Concerning the original topic, we have an incumbent who is blatantly anti-gun, and a challenger who has given autographs at an anti-gun rally as well as made the above youtube clip statement. Looks like we have a choice between anti-gun and gun-control. Yay ? I'll choose someone else, thank you very much.
-
Not at all thrilled with Romney - so my vote is ABO - Anybody But Obama. And I feel that my vote HAS to count towards defeating Obama - so I can't waste that on Ron Paul. A vote for ANYONE other than Romney this election is a vote FOR Obama - and that is just unthinkable to me.
Four more reasons are completely unneeded.
Voting a name instead of voting a platform - I can't do that anymore. I gave McCain the benefit of the doubt last presidential election, but never again. And no, it's not because he lost, it's because I felt a little dirty coming out of the booth.
This year we have two 'primary' candidates that no one seems to be able to name 5 *hard* differences between.
Just for the sake of it, the three that I can come up with are:
* energy policy: romney has stated that he's for taking advantage of our already established energy stores and such. yay.
* i'd assume, given his faith, romney would be against forcing those of faith to offer contraceptives that violate their faith. if you think this applies to the health care thing as a whole, i guess you didn't watch the debates nor hear the man speak.
* romney would probably better support our veterans. as governor he did sign into law several veteran friendly things
-
Grumble.
-
I am so sick of hearing, "a vote for anyone but Romney is a vote for Obama." If anything it's the percentage of voters that are voting for a candidate just because they are not the other guy when there is another candidate they would actually prefer that are making this the case. I don't know about anyone else but I will be voting for the candidate I feel will be best fit as president, which I don't think is Romney or Obama. If Obama get's re-elected it will be the fault of the percentage of the population that isn't voting for the candidate they feel best fit, and instead voting for the "lesser of two evils" as many say. I know it won't be the fault of my vote. Especially in Nebraska
-
Here's another way to think of it: Who was was representing in Massachusetts? Elected officials are supposed to support the majority of their constituents, and he did that in Massachusetts whether we like it or not. I would like to think as President he would abide by his parties policies while still listening to critics.
-
"I know it won't be the fault of my vote. Especially in Nebraska"
cckyle you got that tight.... Nebraska ain't gonna tip the balance. In fact, according to the drive by media we should all stay at home as Ohio will decide the POTUS :)
Kerrey v. Fisher is really the election that matters for Nebraska
"Elected officials are supposed to support the majority of their constituents, and he did that in Massachusetts whether we like it or not"
bradkoll...spot on....i.e. Ernie Chambers....as much as he is pooed pooed he is repesenting his constituents as the voters there demonstate time after time...and will again.....
-
Here's another way to think of it: Who was was representing in Massachusetts? Elected officials are supposed to support the majority of their constituents, and he did that in Massachusetts whether we like it or not. I would like to think as President he would abide by his parties policies while still listening to critics.
I'm fond of being represented. I'm fond of being listened to when I make my small say in a matter. But with how this sounds, we're not picking leaders ... we're picking lobbyists ? And all of the very dangerous implications there-in that I won't get into ?
By population and celebrity contests, if he were to act as a lobbyist, he'd favor the big cities and such which turn out to be mostly democrat.
This also ties into the 'health care' thing. "What was right for massachussettes isn't necessarily right for the rest of the country". And during the debates his responses were more or less 'tweaking'. Lastly, in 2008 MA has 4.2M registered voters, of which 1.5M were democrat, 490K republican, and 2.1M independents. I'm sure that his plan was 'right' for all of those people, too.
This kinda ties into a conversation I was having last night on the subject matter with a friend. I asked a similar question, but didn't include the word 'platform' or 'policy' for comparing the 'two' runners. Her answers were quite well done - if they were running in the primaries to seek their party's nomination. With tongue in cheek, I'll note she voted Obama last year, but is voting Romney this year :).
I would like to think as President he would abide by his parties policies while still listening to critics.
See, I've been avoiding party policy. The republican platform looks great on paper. Too bad they don't follow much of it. It's probably also why I see far less contrast between Obama and Romney as many people do.
I know it won't be the fault of my vote. Especially in Nebraska
I've got friends and family scattered throughout the country (the joys of being a military brat). I'm bugging them just the same as I am you guys. Surely you've got family elsewhere as well ?
For what it's worth, I've still not seen 5 policy differences between the two from anyone.
Heard one wibbly wobbly don't believe it until I see it thing as is the same with all candidates (taxes).
One was mentioned without detail, but I happen to concur *with* details (energy).
C'mon.... you guys have to have a reason other than the very tired and old cry of "anyone but so-and-so" :(.
Concerning the original topic of the thread, if Mr. Allen or anyone else well versed in the matter could clarify why the MA gun law was a huge triumph, I'd love to know why. As mentioned in my prior posts, it seems to be a wash ?
-
UNFY...time for my soapbox and meandering rambling, so here goes....as I alluded to in my post(s) we are voting for the proverbial "lesser of two evils". It is what it is. I'm tired of it after nigh 25 years +. I say the following as am example being a former Naval Officer. John McCain is a war hero. John Kerry (who served in Vietnam) is a war hero. Bob Dole is a war hero. Bob Kerrey is a hero (and one of two CMOH winners I've had the privilege of meeting ((Gen Joe Foss being the other)). Two Repubicans and two Demoncrats to keep my comments fair.....That being said, NONE of the aforementioned except Gen Joe are worth a darn as elected officials. Fate is what made them heroes, but certainly has/had no bearing on there abilities in office other than being a lifetime politician. Being a Native Texican, "W" was an AWESOME Governor (as well as Rick Perry who is better than Romney, but I digress). However, "W" was a good President who declined into mediocrity. I still think history will vindicate many of his actions.
I say all of this because BHO is not something we can continue to have as POTUS. He has accomplished nothing in life other than elected office and obtained a law degree. I take umbrage as a business owner, doctor and veteran at a man who seeks to tread on the very freedoms I've obtained and helped defend (along with my dad and both grandfathers). I am being assaulted daily by mindless insanity of rules and regulations that increase exponentially. Many of my colleagues are quiting or retiring early as they are tired of the crap. To top it off, we are told our employees should benefit EQUALLY from the blood, sweat and tears WE have expended in becoming successful. To that end, I am NOT the band leader for Romney by any sense of the word. However, he is by far the best compared to Ron Paul (don't get me started on what you don't understand about him having experienced him living in my former home state) or any of our other choices. Romney is pro-business, he is pro-military, he is pro-OIL, he is pro-2nd Amendment, he is pro-life, and he is pro-FREEDOM. Does he have major faults IMHO? You betcha. Are the MA gun laws perfect under his tenure? No...but they were certainly improved (similiar to our steadily improved CHP laws here in Nebraska i.e. one step at a time in a positive direction). Do the alternatives in this election fair better for my life experiences and where I would like to see this nation go? Not a chance. And for what it is worth I feel the same about Deb Fisher. I am WHOLLY supportive of her, but feel we had a better choice in Bruning. Again, they all have skeletons. In conclusion,Ii celebrate you freedom to express your opinions here and encourage you to excercise such at the ballot box. To those who don't vote...stick your opinions in your ear. Now I probably in no way addressed your post but at least I feel better and that is what counts in my world :P
-
Bullit! :)
Ya got wishes / feelings for Romney and hope to how he turns out to be (I do assume Romney will get the election btw). I really do hope that he turns out better than his platform and history have made him out to be but all evidence is pointing contrary from what I can see :(.
Most others have similar wishes... but... as ya said, ya haven't really addressed the issue.
Ya did bring up some points, which I'll just pick at hehe.
1) Pro-business. Hopefully. Having built a successful business, you'd hope that he's pro-any-size business. His tenure as governor is a bit muddled in that regard (see: using 'fees' instead of 'taxes'). Unemployment numbers (if you believe them) during his tenure as governor weren't exactly great either (not that those can be placed squarely on his shoulders). There are a few things that could be brought up as well but they're mostly tangential.
2) Pro-military. Sadly, pro war mongering. As far as military spending, I've pointed out earlier that looking at military spending tables / graphs that there's not some huge decline or something under Obama.
3) pro-OIL: energy! agreed :)
4) he is pro-2nd Amendment. on really ? are you sure ? for a man that joined the NRA just prior to an election running season and didn't own a firearm... and you've got the above video clip... i'm finding this hard to believe. I have another source that I'm unable to find a source for so can't mention it :(.
5) he is pro-life. Is he ? are you sure ? He's been pro-choice before (as early as 2002 mind you). And he's had to clarify his position recently due to some flubs ?
6) he is pro-FREEDOM. In what manner ? Allegedly so is Obama. Freedom to have gun control, freedom to have gov't run health care, freedom to send our kids to die on foreign soil sticking our nose where it doesn't belong, freedom to be held indefinitely in prison without trial, etc etc etc ?
a) experience (obama just a short term lawyer + politician). see, that's a fine argument if they're running in the primaries seeking their same party nomination (cough).
PS - do appreciate the additional insight :) ... and I do agree that regulations need to disappear. 'congress shall make law', not some appointed member of some committee free to churn out memos that are effectively law (they set rules, and incur a penalty... sounds like law to me???).
I'm hoping that someone can convince me to vote Romney. I want to believe, I do. But I don't and most responses I get tend to be 'anyone but' or regurgitation without research :(.
A gut feeling is fine for choosing who to vote for, but does little in convincing others. That's not to say that when 'old joe says something, it carries merit' doesnt apply.. but... needing more heh.
Due to NDAA stuff, I can't vote for our incumbents. (insert curse words here). I have some qualms with Fischer as well :(.
Bruning ? We've (my employer that is) recently been to the NE Supreme Court. Not particularly fond of the guy hehehehehe. Personal bias abounds! Anyone But Bruning! ... sorry... hehehehe.
-
I pursue perfection, and in that pursuit, there is no room for compromises or the lesser of two evils. Had I gone with the lesser of two evils, or just good enough, in my previous occupation, I likely would not be here to write this. I refuse to be motivated by fear into voting for Romney.
I disowned the republican party after the "old guard" fiscal conservatives were overrun by theocrats. I wandered around aimlessly for a little while (politically speaking) until I stumbled across some libertarian literature. It was love at first site.
Everything was how it should be. Minimum government, maximum rights, separation of church and state, legalize drugs, gay rights, prostitution, get rid of affirmative action, blah blah blah. I was a libertarian my whole life and just never knew it.
Now, I'm sure it is not for everyone, but had I taken a serious look at it years ago, I never would have claimed myself as a republican, simply because I am not.
"In game theory, voting for the lesser of two evils always leads to more evil. You can do that mathematically."
If a libertarian candidate can get 5%, just 5%, of the vote, the two party system is gone. And presidential election will no longer be the shiniest of two turds.
http://youtu.be/IA9n3lZg1rg (http://youtu.be/IA9n3lZg1rg)
-
PS
Thanks guys! This thread has been far more civilized than I could ever have hoped for.
-
I pursue perfection, and in that pursuit, there is no room for compromises or the lesser of two evils. Had I gone with the lesser of two evils, or just good enough, in my previous occupation, I likely would not be here to write this. I refuse to be motivated by fear into voting for Romney.
I disowned the republican party after the "old guard" fiscal conservatives were overrun by theocrats. I wandered around aimlessly for a little while (politically speaking) until I stumbled across some libertarian literature. It was love at first site.
Everything was how it should be. Minimum government, maximum rights, separation of church and state, legalize drugs, gay rights, prostitution, get rid of affirmative action, blah blah blah. I was a libertarian my whole life and just never knew it.
Now, I'm sure it is not for everyone, but had I taken a serious look at it years ago, I never would have claimed myself as a republican, simply because I am not.
"In game theory, voting for the lesser of two evils always leads to more evil. You can do that mathematically."
If a libertarian candidate can get 5%, just 5%, of the vote, the two party system is gone. And presidential election will no longer be the shiniest of two turds.
Heh, I ran as an LP candidate in 2002 and 2006 down in Alabama. Unfortunately, I was the only LP candidate on the ballot in Alabama in 2006.
-
Still nothing? :(
-
Ok, I've hesitated to enter this or any political discussion this year but I'm going to throw in my two cents worth. To those deriding those who vote for the lesser of two evils and dismissing that as a valid reason, I submit there are times when that indeed is what it comes down to.
There are times when it is necessary to take a stand for what is right. No one is likely to argue with that. So, what is wrong with making a stand against what is wrong?
While it would be nice if the choice between candidates was just that simple, it seldom is. This is a case where either candidate is not a good choice IMO.
The current president has demonstrated either by action or inaction, an attitude of disdain for the Constitution, for veterans, for morality, and for the basic liberties of this countries citizens. He is consistently selling out our country.
If one looks to history, the US is marching step in step with the process seen in Germany as Hitler rose to power. Look it up... it's sobering.
I would like to be able to vote an ideal. But in some cases that is like telling a bleeding victim to wait for care because it would be more ideal to have someone better trained care for them. Common sense says you do what you have to at that moment to save the victim.
IMO, our country is bleeding to death and I will cast my vote where it is most likely to stop the guy causing the bleeding.
The time to work on bring a third party candidate to the forefront is BEFORE the elections. Every election I hear the idealist complain of having to vote for the lesser of two evils. IT'S TOO LATE then!!! Get a viable candidate underway as soon as this election is over... if it's not to late.
-
Well said Doc.
-
If one looks to history, the US is marching step in step with the process seen in Germany as Hitler rose to power. Look it up... it's sobering.
And thus, Godwin's law comes into effect and this thread's usefulness is now at a steady decline or over with :(.
The time to work on bring a third party candidate to the forefront is BEFORE the elections. Every election I hear the idealist complain of having to vote for the lesser of two evils. IT'S TOO LATE then!!! Get a viable candidate underway as soon as this election is over... if it's not to late.
Pay attention to the republican convention or media handling of Paul any? Even if you weren't a RP supporter, there's stench about it in it's entirety. There's plenty of controversy concerning the media and party's treatment of Doc Paul that I won't get into. Needless to say, it's not amusing and beyond the scope of this topic.
Also, I've not been campaigning for anyone in particular, I've been looking for someone to show me several differences between Romney and Obama. There is a lot of hate for Obama here, which I concur with - but no one seems to be able to show me how Romney is different.
If they're not different, then why would I vote for either one ? If you're voting 'anyone but obama', but can't offer platform differences with the guy you're choosing to vote for... then you're still voting for more of the same aren't you ? A choice between Fat Tony vs Big Tony ?
I'm sure people here aren't wanting more of the same, God knows I don't. And everyone seems to be able to tell me why we don't need more of it. So tell me why Romney ISN'T more of the same ? Where are the differences ?
-
I am so sick of hearing, "a vote for anyone but Romney is a vote for Obama." If anything it's the percentage of voters that are voting for a candidate just because they are not the other guy when there is another candidate they would actually prefer that are making this the case. I don't know about anyone else but I will be voting for the candidate I feel will be best fit as president, which I don't think is Romney or Obama. If Obama get's re-elected it will be the fault of the percentage of the population that isn't voting for the candidate they feel best fit, and instead voting for the "lesser of two evils" as many say. I know it won't be the fault of my vote. Especially in Nebraska
A single trick pony like Ron Paul CAN'T win. Show me a candidate worth voting for on his or her merits and I'll be happy to support him / her. Since there isn't one - I have to defeat Obama - Those who vote for a candidate with ZERO chance of winning are giving the incumbent the vote. It matters not if you are sick of hearing it - it's the cold hard truth.
-
+1 for OOBUCK
It cannot be stated any simpler.
-
A single trick pony like Ron Paul CAN'T win.
How is Ron Paul a "single trick pony"? He is good on monetary policy, economic liberty/property rights, individual civil liberties including gun rights, foreign policy, voluntary charity vs. tax-funded welfare, etc.
Show me a candidate worth voting for on his or her merits and I'll be happy to support him / her. Since there isn't one - I have to defeat Obama - Those who vote for a candidate with ZERO chance of winning are giving the incumbent the vote. It matters not if you are sick of hearing it - it's the cold hard truth.
It isn't true at all. A vote for a losing third party candidate isn't the equivalent of a vote for the winning candidate. It is more like not voting at all, really, since voting for a sure loser means by definition that in no case will your vote count towards a potential winner. It isn't quite like abstaining, though, because you've formally registered your dissent (for whatever satisfaction that offers) rather than sending a signal that could be interpreted as apathy or acquiescence, and depending on your state's ballot access laws, you may by casting a third party vote help that party avoid the expense of ballot access petitioning in the next election cycle, thus allowing party resources to be dedicated to programs that actually get the party's message out in front of people. The Prohibition Party largely achieved its policy objectives and played a role in getting a federal constitutional amendment passed without ever electing more than a handful of candidates under their banner.
-
If Romney doesn't win this election, it may be the last one. Little o and his executive order pen will change all we have ever known to a Hitleresque form of government before 2016.
A vote for anyone but Romney will be like overcoming two votes for little o.
-
edit:
I think I'm done with this thread. I've been told that my vote doesn't matter, or that I'm voting for a policy that I'm not... yet this thread is 3 or 4 days old and we've come up with maybe 2 differences between the two.
Therefore, to return the insult, I'll just say this: y'all have proven that they share the same policies, and by voting for either one of them, you are wanting to continue those policies. I'll gladly choose to vote to NOT continue these policies.
Who knows, maybe Romney will pull the biggest change in history and become a Sowell or Friedman after he wins. Here's hoping.
-
A single trick pony like Ron Paul CAN'T win. Show me a candidate worth voting for on his or her merits and I'll be happy to support him / her. Since there isn't one - I have to defeat Obama - Those who vote for a candidate with ZERO chance of winning are giving the incumbent the vote. It matters not if you are sick of hearing it - it's the cold hard truth.
Look up candidates for this election, I guarantee you will find one with more/better merits than Romney. Personally I feel there are more than one that have more/better merits than Romney. Why do all of these candidates have zero chance of winning? Because too many believe they have zero chance of winning and choose not to vote for someone they may rather see in office. This is the mindset that will keep the two major parties with a stranglehold on our elections, and will keep you voting for the lesser of two evils for elections to come. What else can you expect? That is the cold hard truth.
So first it was voting for anyone but Romney was giving a vote for Obama, and now it's two votes for Obama. Come on. Vote how you want to, and I will vote how I want. You are unlikely to sway anyone voting for a third party to vote for Romney by telling them their vote will go to Obama. They have likely already decided not to vote for the lesser of two and evils and thus are of a different voting "mindset". To say if I don't vote for Romney I am voting for Obama is simply untrue. With the current election system it doesn't matter who I vote for in Nebraska my vote will essentially go to Romney anyways. Popular vote doesn't mean anything. When it comes down to the bottom line if you vote for Obama in Nebraska your vote will go to Romney. So if I vote for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or any of the other number of candidates my vote will go to Romney. I would put money on it that 100% of the votes in Nebraska WILL go to Romney. So in the end how can you say my vote will go to Obama? You can't.
-
Well Unfy, before you bow completely out, let me say I do understand your frustration and understand what you're saying. Cckyle is expressing much the same sentiment. As far as policy goes MAYBE there isn't the clear cut difference we'd like to see. Yeah, no doubt there are better candidates.
But, what the rest of us are saying is that right now we are sitting behind a boulder with no place to run, being shot at by a guy on a building. We have one chance to take that guy out and that is with our vote (which may admittedly mean little in Nebraska) and you're asking what brand of ammo he's using. We don't care, we're just under fire and want to stop the shooter.
Maybe the new guy would start shooting too, but one thing is certain... if the current guy is re-elected, his weapons will become much more deadly. He has to be stopped FIRST!!!
I know that isn't your philosophy and in the end, I am just glad you are as concerned about the direction of our country as we all are and that you will vote. Other than that, we'll have to agree to disagree... nothing I'm going to get mad at you about.
-
I don't like our choices either, but I will be voting for who I think can most help correct the unsustainable path our country is currently on.
-
UNFY....are you secretly "Armed and Humerous" who has been banned from this site in the past and recently left on his own accord ??? Hee Hee Hee.....
-
Well said Doc, As I put it to folks at work. While we can not say with any certainty what Romney has in store for this country and how he will react to any given situation, We DO know what Obama has done and plans to do and we have a pretty good hold on how he thinks. I personally would trade the know bad for a unknown. If that don't work out, there's another election in 4 years.
-
UNFY....are you secretly "Armed and Humerous" who has been banned from this site in the past and recently left on his own accord Hee Hee Hee.....
LOL!!! I remember A&H :). And no, I'm not him.
I should have snapped at those who started to edge this topic towards who we may or may not be voting for or theories about how voting works. Similarly, should have snipped at those expressing opinions of Doc Paul or others. This is supposed to be about policy differences between Romney and Obama. Not that those of us who aren't voting for Romney are stupidly throwing our vote away, nor if those voting for Romney are stupidly expecting anything different than we've had for the past four years.
Importantly, this does need to be addressed:
I would put money on it that 100% of the votes in Nebraska WILL go to Romney.
Obama got 41% of the vote (452,979 vs 333,319) in NE in 2008. NE has two large cities that tend to vote Democrat. Don't forget about that.
If it matters.... I've asked for 5 differences, and we've come up with 2 (maybe 3?). I can offer a slough of similarities covering big issues if it'd help the discussion :).
-
I am so sick of hearing, "a vote for anyone but Romney is a vote for Obama." If anything it's the percentage of voters that are voting for a candidate just because they are not the other guy when there is another candidate they would actually prefer that are making this the case. I don't know about anyone else but I will be voting for the candidate I feel will be best fit as president, which I don't think is Romney or Obama. If Obama get's re-elected it will be the fault of the percentage of the population that isn't voting for the candidate they feel best fit, and instead voting for the "lesser of two evils" as many say. I know it won't be the fault of my vote. Especially in Nebraska
Obama Dem 55,150,299
Romney GOP 54,025,359
Others 1,677,100
You SHOULD be sick - sick that 1.7 million people decided to give Obama another 4 years....
-
buck: well, to begin with - popular vote doesn't decide it. taking a look at close states, the third party votes wouldn't have changed the outcome. i'd also really think twice about attempting to point fingers like that :)
secondly, as this thread has shown - there weren't any policy differences between Romney/Obama, so for someone like me who honestly doesn't see a difference... either of those two candidates winning would have counted as a loss / bad thing.
ie:
So now we get obamacare rather than a 'tweaked' obamacare or a romneycare. so no big change there.
We have a president who has answered questions regarding the 2A as not wanting to restrict things.... sounds romneyish too. so no big loss there.
We still have a president who thinks we should be sticking our nose where it don't belong concerning foreign affairs... sounds like romney to me.
We still have a keynesian school of thought president... still sounding like romney...
so.... what we've lost is the off chance that a president might act differently than how his past nearly certainly suggested he would.
if it helps, you can think of it this way. since we can't seem to name policy differences... the man you wanted didn't win, but the policies did win.
-
Obama Dem 55,150,299
Romney GOP 54,025,359
Others 1,677,100
You SHOULD be sick - sick that 1.7 million people decided to give Obama another 4 years....
I'm not even sure what to say to this. I must have missed all those swing states where the third party voters really turned out. As far as the 1.7 million people I'm not sick at all that they voted third party, in fact I would have have been happy to see that number quite a bit higher.
-
Credibility for a third party by getting a decent number of votes may have actually gotten the powers-that-be in the two main parties to abandon the status quo and actually start governing responsibly.
-
While I appreciate the third party argument (look both of the current parties were once upon a time a third party that overtook a party that was in existence) this election came down to less than 300,000 votes in particular states (making the electoral college). And a couple of them the third party vote would have come real close to making up the difference, and in a few recounts still might tighten things up. Look Alan West was said to have lost on election night by a fairly sizable amount, but in the recount that he insisted upon he has a significant lead over his opponent.
Was there any major differences between the two major candidates to a degree there was not. Both parties have become about creating more power for themselves which means bigger government. But on the issue of our second amendment rights the most important question right now is who is on the Supreme Court, and we are likely to have given Obama a chance to put two or three more Elaina Kaggens on the court in this last election. Where a person stands on my rights is where I vote, and even though there is no major differences between the two candidates the people the appoint to carry things out would have been extremely differant, and the third party vote which has not been able to come to a sizable enough amount to do anything is costing me my rights. This is not only effecting major races like the Presidential elections but also the smaller local races.
If you would like to sit down and have a beer sometime and discuss these things in depth I would enjoy the conversation. We have a lot of our positions in common, we just see the big picture of how to get from point a to point b differently. Until we can come together and find a map to the future that we can agree upon these differences are going to continue to plague us politically. The left has come together at least in there voting the right needs to learn the lesson that the left has and move forward.
-
Out of the people I know who voted for Gary: 8 (including myself)
6 of them, if given no other choice, would have voted for Obama. I did not ask all of them why.
2 (me), if given no other choice would have voted for Romney. And the ONLY reason we would have is because of the dire fiscal situation.
For the sake of sanity, do not keep insisting that third party candidates are only stealing votes from your candidates.
Instead of blaming third parties, perhaps both parties should take a long hard look at the policies that are driving people away.
I hear most often cited:
Repubs: (legislating morality)
Theocratic values(Gay marriage, reproductive rights, evolution) *scroll down for my personal rant
Corporate subisidies
Unrealistic and impractical position on illegal immigration
Unwillingness to cooperate (Tax reform)
Innacurate reporting (propaganda, fake science, incorrect data)
War on drugs
Dems: (legislating equality)
Gun Control
Runaway entitlement programs
Runaway budget deficit and debt
Unwillingness to cooperate (budget cuts)
Corporate subsidies
War on drugs
*The theocratic values are probably the biggest things that drove me away from the republican party. I lived in theocracies, that is not freedom, that is not liberty, that is state sponsored religion used to control the masses. Evolution is science, creationism is theology. Females should have reproductive rights, but you have republicans saying things like this:
1. Todd Akin: “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways of shutting that whole thing down” - mid 2012 Senate Campaign
2. Clayton Williams: “If it’s inevitable, just relax and enjoy it” - mid 1990 Gubernatorial race in Texas
3. Chuck Winder: “I would hope that when a woman goes in to a physician with a rape issue, that physician will indeed ask her about perhaps her marriage, was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage or was it truly caused by a rape. I assume that’s part of the counseling that goes on.” - March 2012
4. Ken Buck: “A jury could very well conclude that this is a case of buyer’s remorse … It appears to me … you invited him over… the appearance is of consent.” - October 2010
5. Rick Santorum: “I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created — in the sense of rape — but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you… rape victims should make the best of a bad situation.” - January, 2012
-
Here at work, we didn't really discuss who we were voting for prior to the election.
Turns out the office voted Johnson heh.
The debate on voting for 'lesser of two evils' is... lengthy. Some analogies:
If I sit down at a restaurant and they tell me my only choices are dog poop and cat poop... I'm walking out the door.
If I'm tied up and have the choice between someone hitting me with a wooden bat, someone hitting me with a metal bat, or someone who might let me go free, I'll pick the third person.
There was a time when red vs blue could easily be argued that one side has a few draw backs but those were worth dealing with cause their views mostly aligned with your own.
This election and the last 4-8 years, where has that distinction gone ? Where's the difference ? Purple party for the win!
Now, turning to vote counts.
First ... lets just with comparing vote count from 2008 to 2012.
2008: 59,948,240 for McCain
2012: 58,363,044 for Romney
So, in 4 years later, fewer people voted for Romney than they did McCain.
In 2008, third party votes were around 1,843k votes, coming up to around 1.41%
In 2012, third party votes were around 1,828k votes, coming up to around 1.51%
Attempting to blame third party stuff for siphoning votes off is silly by these numbers
This year, looking at some close states.
Florida:
4,202,606 Obama
4,138,990 Romney
------------------------
63,616 Difference
Independent vote count (not including write ins apparently) would be around 70-75k. Of which, Johnson pulled 44k. If you erroneously believe that all third party votes would have been red (which they wouldn't have been... would you have voted for roseanne barr ?) ... then sure, third party made a difference.
Virginia:
1,905,528 Obama
1,789,618 Romney
------------------------
115,910 difference
Independent vote (not including write ins): 52k or so. Doesn't make a difference.
Wisconsin:
1,613,950 Obama
1,408,746 Romney
------------------------
205,204 Difference
Third party vote (not including write ins) is under 40k. Doesn't make a difference.
Ohio:
2,697,260 Obama
2,593,779 Romney
--------------------------
103,481 Difference
Independent vote: around 86k. Wouldn't have made a difference.
Pennsylvania
2,907,448 Obama
2,619,583 Romney
-------------------------
287,865 Difference
Third party vote: 69k would not have made a difference.
Colorado
1,238,490 Obama
1,125,391 Romney
-------------------------
113,099 Difference
Third party vote: 55k ish ? Nope, no difference there.
So.... outside of some insane Republican Party Ron Paul write in fest (which may or may not have been done, i dunno?) ... attempting to blame third party stuff is VERY moot.
"Political Strategy" constructs abound as to why things turned out like they did. From a somewhat outsider, I'll point these out...
* Obama got 69M votes in 2008, and only 61M in 2012. Nearly a 12% drop and the red party could do what ????
* Romney lost the primary to McCain last time around. You expected him to do better among your own party base this time ?
* Where are the policy differences ? I know Republicans that were disgusted enough to not bother
* Ron Paul was (and still is) packing stadiums left and right, has a very fervent fan base, etc .... yet the way the party treated him was downright ugly. No bones were thrown, nothing. Way to piss off stadiums filled with people.
* I dunno if the general population at large cares, but continuing with the treatment of Paul - the rules change on the RNC floor was poorly handled. That'd leave a sour taste in anyone's mouth, no matter what your position on Paul was.
* Quit saying stupid **** in front of a mic or in a memo (see wallace's post).
Talking with some friends that were very pro-Obama, they were very much of the opinion "anyone but Romney".
Moving on to the SCOTUS.
Would Romney have picked 'our favorites' -> probably not. The man's history doesn't indicate that.
Would Romeny have picked 'more centrist' or at least 'less left' -> Prolly.
But when you don't see a difference between a man's policy / platform, why would you assume he'd pick SCOTUS people differently ?
Very very very stupid mistakes by politicians saying very stupid things... (re: rape).... yeah... sigh. I have no idea wtf is wrong with these guys. Rape is very very bad, mmmkay. Even religious people view it as such.
Bringing this into pro-life/choice ... I still do NOT understand what the big deal is. RvW settled it Constitutionally. Unless you're gonna get an Amendment through, move on with your life.
Politicians need to only say something like: It's a very complex issue that is very personal and emotion invoking. Wiser men than I, the SCOTUS, decided RvW already. For those that really want to know, my personal belief is that abortions are (right/wrong).
I think the whole 'pick a trimester when abortions become wrong' is just a smoke screen as well as attempting to find political middle ground on a subject via a personal/emotional stance rather than any type of legal mumbo jumbo.
For what it's worth, I abide by SCOTUS decisions from a legal stand point (this mandate decision is... well... cough... hard to swallow). On moral ground, I am pro-life with the understanding that there are some truly heinous situations that I can't begin to contemplate due to how awful they are. Such as: life / death situation for both mom and fetus. I hope to never be put in such a situation to have to make that kind of choice.
-
^+10000000
I was just trying to show that libertarians come from both sides. Thank you for the thorough and comprehensive report.
How Ron was treated appalled me as well. There is a true fiscal conservative I could get behind.
-
A cute bit of info, dunno if it's accurate or not, and the date suggests it's a tad old heh:
An estimated 201.5 million U.S. citizens age 18 or over will be eligible to vote Nov. 2, although many are not now registered. Of these, about 55 million are registered Republicans. About 72 million
registered Democrats.
About 42 million are registered as independents, under some other minor party or with a "No Party" designation.
If we take those that are registered (72 + 55 + 42 = 169M), we come up with:
42% democrat
32% republican
24% independent
That would paint a very interesting picture if the vote turned out Obama/Romney/Johnson at those percentages ? :)
The thing where third party stuff becomes much more influential is local and in Congress. If Congress ends up split, while the POTUS is still important, getting Congress to cooperate is much more interesting.
If you think that the third party stuff is siphoning off of the red party, then the red party is obviously doing something very horribly wrong and disenfranchising folks so much that they're not willing to "vote the lesser of two evils" any more.
If those disenfranchised folks share similar opinions as yours... you gotta ask what drove them away but doesn't bother you as much. Not a whole lot you can do about their choice on a personal level, except perchance vote for candidates from within your party that better fit your ideals.... so that the party policy / alignment comes closer to your own (and hopefully the disenfranchised).
PS, yes i hate the word 'disenfranchised' now heh. Said it entirely too many times.