Still don't know whom to vote for?

carguy123 wrote: Right now the train is coming and there’s no time to build a track or a 3rd party. By definition the lessor of 2 evils is the best choice and the way to vote. At least that way you are helping the country move forward instead of allowing it to crash and burn while you sit there all morally superior on top of the ruins.

You forget the fact that many think our 2 party system and the corruption that permeates it is causing our country to crash and burn.

I'd rather have the country go through a time of turmoil and come out with a better / less corrupt system than follow the same old road towards our certain demise.

Unless someone miraculous becomes available, Ron Paul will get my vote. Of course I'll also be voting against nearly all incumbents.

In reply to carguy123:

Sure sounds like a lot of people to fit in a Miata.

Also: your scenario both 1. doesn't apply in any way to electoral politics, and 4. completely ignores the fact that most able-bodied humans can carry more than one baby. Babies stack like cheap cafeteria chairs.

Also also: Everyone knows babies vote green party. That's why they're such train advocates. Nobody would save a green party baby.

93EXCivic wrote: In reply to carguy123: I don't care. I am not voting for Romney or Obama or damn near anyone running from the Republican party. Ron Paul might be getting my vote but he has a lot of things that I don't agree with and a lot I really agree with.

DEAD BABIES!

carguy123 wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: In reply to carguy123: I don't care. I am not voting for Romney or Obama or damn near anyone running from the Republican party. Ron Paul might be getting my vote but he has a lot of things that I don't agree with and a lot I really agree with.

DEAD BABIES!

berkeley em

What's worse than 10 dead babies on one railroad track?

One dead baby on 10 railroad tracks.

OBTW: the parties have it rigged financially so it's nearly impossible for the average goob to hope to run for ANYTHING on their platform. Remember our own Alvin Greene? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Greene The Dems were aghast that he somehow paid their $10,000.00 filing fee. Sure, he was an idiot and had no chance of winning but what's most telling about the whole thing is how the Dems reacted to his candidacy.

From the Wiki: After Greene was declared the winner and after his opponent congratulated him on his win, officials in the Democratic party began to voice opposition and to raise questions about Greene and his campaign. South Carolina Democratic Party chairwoman Carol Fowler said she had not seen Greene since he filed to run.[6] Clarendon County Democratic Party Chairman Cal Land told local newspaper The Item that local party leaders had not met Greene, that he had not attended any local Democratic events and had not responded to any invitations to local stump meetings.[22] He did not attend the state Democratic party convention, did not file the form with the Secretary of the Senate and the legally required form for the Federal Election Commission, and attempted to pay his $10,400 filing fee with a personal check, rather than a check from a campaign account.

Hmmm. So it torqued them that he dared to use a personal check? Does that mean that if I walked in and plopped down my personal check to pay my filing fee that is not kosher? Why should they give a crap as long as the check clears? That tells me things are rigged. I guarantee you the Repubs are every bit as bad about this.

To make it worse, the cost to get the message out is so high that third party candidates are pretty well screwed. So we are stuck with what I call industrial politics.

oldsaw wrote: A Libertarian ex-judge poses some interesting questions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eD_ybaXhXno Obviously, he's no fan of the two-party system. And although Ron Paul isn't electable in today's climate, he is planting seeds that might make for a viable, future alternative - if he lives long enough.

Nice. I'm not a TV News kinda guy, but when I see clips of that guy, I like him a lot. Seems like less of a douche than OlberHannityBaugh.

In reply to carguy123:

Or we can take the Libertarian stance and just let the train hit the babies because it isn't the Federal government's job to save any babies from trains.

Also, as I read it, the entire point of your post is this: We all know the system is broken, let's just keep doing what we've always done because there isn't any hope of changing things before the election.

BullE36 M3. Vote for your third party candidate, show others that it is possible to get grassroots support.

It said my first choice should be Huntsman followed by Obama…is that analogous to being diagnosed with bipolar disorder???

Whatever, I’d put Obama’s reelection at seventy plus percent as the media now has plausible deniability when telling us the economy is turning around and Mitt is pretty much a lock for the GOP nomination which will spare Obama from having to defend his health care reform.

So, Obama will be around to make his health care reform stick which, as planned, will be unworkable without going to a socialized system, opps, sorry, I forgot to use the euphemism of single payer system.

I guess it’s not the end of the world…perception is reality, everybody will party like it’s 1999 and buy stuff which will drive up the value of my stocks which will allow me to pay for the commie medicine.

Brett_Murphy wrote: Or we can take the Libertarian stance and just let the train hit the babies because it isn't the Federal government's job to save any babies from trains.

Any "reasonable" person, even a Libertarian, would make every effort to save as many of those babies as possible.

Libertarians would, however, hold responsible those who put the babies on the tracks.

oldsaw wrote:

Brett_Murphy wrote: Or we can take the Libertarian stance and just let the train hit the babies because it isn't the Federal government's job to save any babies from trains.

Any "reasonable" person, even a Libertarian, would make every effort to save as many of those babies as possible. Libertarians would, however, hold responsible those who put the babies on the tracks.

...and democrats would say, look, we just created ten shovel ready jobs

In reply to oldsaw:

I'd have hoped it was obvious I was being sarcastic. Sarcasm doesn't travel well over the intertubes, sorry about that.

berkeley you all. I'm voting for the Dang Heathens.

poopshovel wrote: berkeley you all. I'm voting for the Dang Heathens.

It's gotta be better than the Damn Yankees!

poopshovel wrote: berkeley you all. I'm voting for the Dang Heathens.

DAMMIT! I was just gonna say that.

Brett_Murphy wrote: In reply to carguy123: Or we can take the Libertarian stance and just let the train hit the babies because it isn't the Federal government's job to save any babies from trains. Also, as I read it, the entire point of your post is this: We all know the system is broken, let's just keep doing what we've always done because there isn't any hope of changing things before the election. BullE36 M3. Vote for your third party candidate, show others that it is possible to get grassroots support.

No, what I said was that you needed to work to fix the system, but until it is fixed you need to vote for the best choice available at that time to keep our noses out of the water until we can get things changed.

At this time voting for a third party candidate doesn't show anyone anything. They already know people are pissed so you are throwing away your vote and allowing the most status quo candidate to win. So you are doing dead babies.

Brett_Murphy wrote: In reply to oldsaw: I'd have hoped it was obvious I was being sarcastic. Sarcasm doesn't travel well over the intertubes, sorry about that.

Emoticons are your friend(s)...........

carguy123 wrote:

Brett_Murphy wrote: In reply to carguy123: Or we can take the Libertarian stance and just let the train hit the babies because it isn't the Federal government's job to save any babies from trains. Also, as I read it, the entire point of your post is this: We all know the system is broken, let's just keep doing what we've always done because there isn't any hope of changing things before the election. BullE36 M3. Vote for your third party candidate, show others that it is possible to get grassroots support.

No, what I said was that you needed to work to fix the system, but until it is fixed you need to vote for the best choice available at that time to keep our noses out of the water until we can get things changed. At this time voting for a third party candidate doesn't show anyone anything. They already know people are pissed so you are throwing away your vote and allowing the most status quo candidate to win. So you are doing dead babies.

Sorry I cant disagree more. The folks who broke the system are not going to be the ones to fix it.

Voting for a third party candidate is not "throwing your vote away". By voting third party you are standing up for what you believe in. Aside from a major breakdown in society, the only thing that will likely bring about large scale change is if a lot of people start voting for third parties.

As I see it the only wasted votes are votes not cast, or votes for the status quo (Dem, or Repub).

No, since you have no hope of a 3rd party candidate winning then you are making it possible for the wrong guys to win and keep on doing what they are doing. Someone is going to win.

Wouldn't you rather it be the lesser of 2 evils rather than evil personified? Then in between elections you keep working for change. It's going to take many elections before there's a change. It won't come overnight.

And if the wrong people get in power they can just keep curtailing our rights and making it that much harder to effect a change.

Quiz: Ron Paul distantly followed by Romney and Gingrich.

Reality: Ron Paul distantly followed by Batman and Cobra Commander, as I refuse to vote for any other candidate.

Curmudgeon wrote: Huntsman, Romney, then.... Bachmann? Wow. Reality check: no way would I have voted for her, she's a bit too 'fringey' for me. I'd vote for Ron Paul before her.

Paul is more centrist/less fringe than Bachmann? (shiver) Mine was Paul/Perry/Bachmann. And I think Paul's a loon. And Not Ready For Prime Time Perry? Nope. Bachmann? Not presidential material. I don't agree with Newt on many things, and I'm not sure I trust him, but I'd vote for him a hunnert times before I'd vote for Romney, even if his ol' man was the boss of AMC. But.... I vote for Anybody But Obama.

Both parties are overly fond of curtailing our rights. Bush and Obama both have done, and continue to do terrible things in the name of national security. The system is broken.

Between the Dems and the Republicans there is no "lesser" evil. Both parties are working to undermine the rule of law, and enrich their financiers. They are steadily working to turn my great country into a second rate banana republic.

And yes even if my third party candidate looses and some lame-o gets in power I still don't consider my vote wasted. At least I stood up for real change instead of voting for some sham candidate who promises reform but won't deliver since he is directly benefiting from the corrupt system.

The Dems and Republicans have really stacked the deck against any alternatives. This is a pretty interesting write up of the challenges a third party faces if they want to get elected.

http://www.democracyisnotfreedom.com/monopoly.asp

I came out with 82% for Ron Paul who I will vote for and the next two were Perry and Gingrich both around 40%, bu there is zero chance I'd vote for either of those two clowns.

If (when) it comes down to Romney and Obama there is really no difference there. They are the same, so it doesn't really matter which one gets in there at that point. I would like to say that I would vote against our Dear Leader who apparently has appointed himself king and has decided that he can capture, kill, or indefinitely detain any of at his word alone in direct violation of the Bill of Rights, but there is no way I would vote for Romney who would just continue with the very same policies.

This will be an interesting year.

That quiz was pretty dumb. Maybe I should run for office.

The question about reducing our foreign energy dependence had all the answers that addressed electricity. More Nuclear power, or more alternative energy, etc., but it's not like we import a lot of coal. We make plenty of electricity, in fact there are power plants all over that are spinning reserves - meaning they are not needed to meet demand and are ready in case they are needed.

What the question was asking really was how do we break our dependence on the middle east for oil? The answer is we don't. More domestic production is really not an option - we hit peak oil in the 1970's and our domestic production has gone down since then. It will never go back up higher than it was before. We extracted all of our easy to get to high quality oil already. We have spent the last 100 years mis-allocating our resources so that now we have a country that requires oil in ever increasing amounts. We have suburban sprawl where we should have dense urban areas. We have neighborhoods where walking and riding bikes are not only not practical, but not safe. We have big box stores out on the outskirts of towns instead of downtown business districts. We have an interstate system that was built largely by borrowed money so we could better use the cheap oil we import from the middle east.

I would like to try to figure out what our true cost of gas is if we factored in all the tax breaks the oil companies get, a majority of the Defense Department budget, and all the federal and state money spent on road construction, plus the money to bailout GM and Chrysler. We are really paying far more per gallon than we think, but the costs are hidden from us so that gas appears to be cheap so we can drive our Escalades and Excursions back and forth to our jobs that are 30 miles each way.