Gary Johnson would have a chance if people voted solely on issues and not Party Brand

Just answer me this, if a man punches you without apologizing and you remain friends with him ...will he respect you? Should he?

I can't vote for Republicans because of they lied about being small government and refuse to control the amount of power and authority of the federal government.

 

Thank you Alice in Wonderland.

Or is it Snow White?

I can't tell from the picture.

Unfortunately you avoided answering my question by simply asking another question of your own.

The Republicans are not perfect.

And Romney is far from the ideal conservative candidate.

But because he's not conservative enough you'd rather see a borderline Marxist in the White House for 4 more years of absolute destruction to our economy and American way of life?

That is just insane.

 

If a man hits you and never apologizes and you just go back to being friends with him will he respect you?

Won't he then take for granted that he never has to treat you well because you just allowed him to beat you with impugnity?

Answer the questions, please.

The Republicans actively sought to shut out people that were not mainstream. This is a punch, its not even just ignoring us. They punched at us and you're saying to suck that up and go along and hope that they won't see this sign of weakness as acquiescence.

 

I won't answer the question until you answer mine.

You are soooooooooooooooooo pissed at the Republicans while the Democrats are much farther to the left but you're just peachy keen with them.

I feel like I am trapped in an Alice in Wonderland nightmare when I talk to you folks.

 

I don't want Obama to get re-elected, I don't want Romney to get elected thats it. Nothing more complicated than that. How is that going to happen if I vote for either one?!

Republicans chose someone who is only a slight bit more conservative than Obama, its not enough differentiation for me to get me to vote for him, the bottom line. There are many like me who will either vote third party, or like I did last election will sit home and not vote, because none of the "candidates with a chance" are appealing. I have decided from now on though that I will always vote for a third party candidate if there is one because I want to show the two main parties my disgust in their big government policies.

It makes perfect sense to anyone who really is sick of big government. Republicans have proved in this election and through their actions while I have been alive they only pay lip service to individual liberty, freedom and small government. What doesn't make sense is you guys continuing to support them and still calling yourself advocates of smaller government.

 

I don't want to put words in Zosiasmom's mouth but I would bet she is not peachy keen with Democrats. The problem with you two party people is that you always assume that anyone who talks bad about your party is automatically fans of the other one. How simple your world must be where everything is black and white.

Fact is there are lots of people who are fed up with both parties, and you can see it throughout this board.

 

I've answered you and many others over and over. You are the ones dodging mine because you would have to agree that it makes no sense to align with people that have treated your values like they don't exist, your issues like they are unimportant, and even used poor sportsmanship and unethical protocols to avoid giving you any sort of recognition.

Why? Because...?

Why should you align with someone who as actively attempted to hurt and disgrace you, to devalue your contribution, and to never give you any support for your issues?

 

You didn't answer my question. How would airing the views of the top seven candidates (one from each of the six top parties and Barr, since she's independent) with equal air time keep people from hearing the views of the "real" candidates?

 

You libertarians are going to have to deal with one small inconvenient fact.


The country has no interest in the libretarian platform in enough numbers. Your platform has been soundly rejected. Most of the country LIKES a sense of community. Not every man for him self.


How they wish to approach that ideal ( liberally or conservativley ) is the issue.

 

5% according to the most recent polls. And that's 5% of about 20-30% of the country, since the other 70-80% doesn't vote.

What doesn't make sense is you claiming to be about liberty and freedom while demeaning anyone that refuses to vote for a candidate only about 10% of the country chose.

 

The sad part is that in every discussion about third party candidates, they only prove our point that they lie when they say they are about freedom and liberty and small government. They support a duocracy, where only two parties that represent 20% of the country control the other 80%. They demean anyone that doesn't let them make their own choices for themselves (and then (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about personal responsibility...lolz).

 

The Libertarian platform is not every man for himself. That's just what some modern libertarians have turned it into. The Libertarian platform is that government doesn't need to look after people beyond protection of their rights and liberties because we will protect each other.

 

I wish I believed that. But I dont think that would happen. If we took government out of EVERYTHING to do with the general welfare, I think there would be a lot more suffering to be had.

I am one of those people that do not believe that charity would be enough to take care of all the needs of the poor and elderly. I think many people would be left out in the cold if such was the case.

 

Oh I though it was obvious. If say the debate lasts 90 minutes then instead of hearing 45 minutes from each of the real candidates you get only 12 minutes from these candidates and the rest of the time it is candidates that are not in the running and don't have a prayer. If one of them can get their support up to say 15% then I think they deserve to be on the stage. Until then they are just wasting everyone's time and not letting us hear from the candidates that are actually competing.

 

While I don't go as far as The Real Norwegian Thinker I agree that government should not be taking tax dollars from one citizen by force and giving it to someone else that didn't earn it.

Welfare should be a matter of private charity freely given from one citizen to another.

But having said that I see very little in the Libertarian platform that I can support.

And certainly not open borders with Mexico and the invasion of illegal foreign workers (and their welfare demands) into America.

 

Who said the debates had to be only ninety minutes?

 

Mitt Romney doesn't fall under any definition of the word "conservative" and instead is a corporatist authoritarian advocating theocratic law in the United States.

Conservatives advocate small government, balanced budgets, compliance with the US Constitution (all of it) and the Rule of Law, free trade (not corporatism) and protection of Individual Rights and Liberties. Mitt Romney supports none of the above.

 

Any candidate that is on the ballot in enough States where they could win the election is a viable candidate. Certainly a candidate that is on the ballot in all 50 states should be on the stage.

This belief that we should limit the political discourse and debate in America goes against the very foundation and ideals of our government. Even if a candidate doesn't seem to have any chance of being elected their political opinions are valuable even if we don't agree with them. Knowing the arguments is valuable regardless of whether we endorse the political opinion or not.

What the Republicans and Democrats want is to suppress minority opinions which is why the "debate" criteria is designed to exclude minority opinion. Neither Obama or Romney wants to be on staqe with someone that states the US budget can be balanced next year. It would make them look like idiots and they don't want there advocacy for unending deficit spending and doubling of the national debt presented to the American People for example. They don't want to have the fact that US military interventionism doesn't produce positive results for America presented to the American People. They don't want the fact that the War on Drugs is a complete failure addressed in the debates.

America should be embracing diversifed political opinion on our national debates for President but instead we suppress it. I would much rather watch five hours of political discussion presenting as many diversified political opinions as opposed to listening to 90 minutes of both sides basically presenting the same political opinions. There really isn't much difference between Romney and Obama other than rhetoric. The substance from both is the same.

 

When the alternative is a borderline anti-American Marxist like Obama Romney is conservative enough for me.

He was not my choice in the primary but he is the only choice now in the general election.

 

Good for you! Seriously, I'm glad that you're happy with the two choices you believe that you have and that you picked the one conservative enough for you.

 

You continue to live in a fairytale land that does not really exist.

There are only two realistic choices in this election.

Either Obama or Romney will win and be the next president.

And of the two I far and away prefer Romney.

 

Well I think people should vote for a good candidate. Not just "Lets pick the one who we think sucks less from the two major political parties". Besides which there could be the chance of voting for a person who you don't want but are voting for to prevent the other guy from getting in, the other guy will get in anyways.

As I keep saying the GOP screwed up by choosing Romney in the first place. As such Obama will get a second term. By voting for Gary Johnson, theres a chance that in the 2016 election, Libertarians can be taken seriously and we won't end up with Biden as president because the GOP screws up again and goes with the pattern of picking the worst of the lot as far as candidates were concerned like they did with George W Bush, John McCain and now Mitt Romney. Who can we look forward to in 2016 to go against Biden for the GOP? Rick Santorum?

 

So why is Romney so bad and Obama so good?

Because your approach to the election is a vote for Obama whether you realize it or not.

 

He wants to cut government spending by 43%. That alone is enough reason for me to not even consider him a serious candidate. Does anyone realize how bad that would hurt the economy? Anyone at all?

Not to mention his naive promise to withdraw from Afghanistan immediately.