Anyone For Mitt In 2016

[Henry]

Vote for someone who endorses self governance. Supporting the establishment sets your grandchildren up to be slaves, nothing more.

Your personal sense of conscience will avail them nothing.

Truth.

 

[ViperJock]

I think I'll vote for Mitt just to see if he is as bad as INGO says. How much worse can it get anyway? INGO has taught me that there is no such thing as a lesser evil so from now on Im going all in! Romney for President!

 

[BogWalker]

I'm wondering if he'll even get the nomination. Just about everybody is rolling their eyes at him.

 

[hornadylnl]

I think I'll vote for Mitt just to see if he is as bad as INGO says. How much worse can it get anyway? INGO has taught me that there is no such thing as a lesser evil so from now on Im going all in! Romney for President!

The lesser of 2 evils argument would have some merit if it weren't the functional equivalent of saying this turd is better than that one because it doesn't have corn in it.

 

[bwframe]

How can we convince you to stop casting your consent for those who would rule you?

How can we fix a nation that predominantly still demands to be ruled by two establishment parties?

Very very simple. Establish your platform to gain popularity and ultimately win. Find a candidate who can win.

You will continue to fail if your major premise is solely to lump 95% of voters as "the same" and wrong.

 

[hornadylnl]

I think the reason there's so much vitriol towards libertarians is they're a constant reminder that the party of small government isn't.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I think the reason there's so much vitriol towards libertarians is they're a constant reminder that the party of small government isn't.

My gut feeling is people are people and if libertarians really ever got themselves into a position to govern a broad spectrum of Americans, they probably would disappoint as well.

 

[hornadylnl]

My gut feeling is people are people and if libertarians really ever got themselves into a position to govern a broad spectrum of Americans, they probably would disappoint as well.

I'm sure they would as well. To what degree, we'll never know because people are too busy arguing against their own supposed principles simply because another party happens to have those same principles.

A republicans house could be on fire and they'd turn the fire truck away if a libertarian was driving it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'm sure they would as well. To what degree, we'll never know because people are too busy arguing against their own supposed principles simply because another party happens to have those same principles.

A republicans house could be on fire and they'd turn the fire truck away if a libertarian was driving it.

Not if it were taxpayer funded. (the fire truck, that is).

 

[printcraft]

Tell me what's wrong with trying to move the country in the right direction again?

Answer me truthfully..... It's ALL or nothing right?
Is the answer that you'll finally have your way and be able to lead
a new fresh start when you are sifting through the ashes of the remnant of America?
I guess that having obama and hitlary in charge just hastens the destruction..... then the glory can be had.

Nobody but hitlary 2016

 

[KG1]

I'm not gonna be sucked into participating in this circle jerk again.

 

[Dead Duck]

I'm not gonna be sucked into participating in this circle jerk again.

KG1 called hornadylnl a Jerk.

***REPORTED***

 

[ATM]

Very very simple. Establish your platform to gain popularity and ultimately win. Find a candidate who can win.

You will continue to fail if your major premise is solely to lump 95% of voters as "the same" and wrong.

So what you're saying is, you will continue to vote for establishment rulers because they are most likely to win (thus, "popular" for their chance of being elected rather than for their platform).

It sure doesn't sound like your "very simple" solution has a thing to do with what I asked.

And, if 95% of voters want to be ruled by a national establishment of elites, encroaching ever further upon our liberties and freedom, they are wrong.

 

[mrjarrell]

bw wants libertarians to run Hillary and espouse democratic dogma. Ain't gonna happen. The party gave the nod to Gary Johnson because he was a libertarian and electable. Apparently, that ain't good enough. As for changing the platform, that is a constant work in progress and it has undergone extensive revision over the last decade. I think it's a helluva lot better than what the republicans and democrats espouse in theirs. It actually addresses issues from a pro liberty standpoint. My guess is that bw has never read the LP platform.

Platform | Libertarian Party

If that isn't good enough for ya, I don't know what would be.

 

[Redhorse]

Indiana is irrelevant as to who gets picked to run in the republican primary. The Indiana primary takes place after the candidate has already been decided by other, earlier voting states.

Fair enough but we can still send the message during the primaries themselves. Last election cycle I had three or four candidates to pick from if I remember correctly. I'm sure there will be some other choice than Romney, Bush, or Christie...or at least I hope. Those three don't meet my standards on individual rights.

 

[Redhorse]

But they're the only ones who can beat Hillary.

Rand Paul can beat Hillary if Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians give him a chance.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Rand Paul can beat Hillary if Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians give him a chance.

I agree with Redhorse - I disagree with the RINO crowd on a lot of things. I disagree a lot more with Hitlary. If given my preference , I'd take someone up the Rand Paul alley.

So - an honest question for the Ingotarian crowd: ATM, Mrj, rambone, hornadylnl et al. - If Rand Paul got the R nomination (he would have the name recognition , machine etc behind him) , then would you vote for him? Or a) is he not pure enough? b) You can't stand to vote for ANY R? c) some other reason?

Oh, and In Before the "Doesn't matter , the Party wouldn't nominate him..." crowd...

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

The party gave the nod to Gary Johnson because he was a libertarian and electable. Apparently, that ain't good enough.

Iguana crap...

I liked him as well or better than any candidate. Would have been willing to vote for him. It doesn't have to be the R Candidate or nothing. My beef with him (and I stated it here at the time) was that he had ZERO name recognition. If 75% of the people go "who the freak is THAT?" when you say "Gary Johnson". Houston, YOU HAVE A PROBLEM.... You have not arrived at critical mass.

And I know - the L crowd says that they need the money to get the exposure. Bull...

Consider the case of folks who HAVE won as libertarian/third party candidates. Jesse Ventura didn't have a major party behind him. BUT he had massive name recognition. He had critical mass (not that I'm a big fan of his - but he WON due to the name recognition.). Show me an L with better than 50% name recognition and I WON'T use the phrase "wasting your vote" that the L's hate so much. Heck I'll vote for 'em. They just need to have a hope in Hades of pulling it off.

 

[rambone]

So - an honest question for the Ingotarian crowd: ATM, Mrj, rambone, hornadylnl et al. - If Rand Paul got the R nomination (he would have the name recognition , machine etc behind him) , then would you vote for him? Or a) is he not pure enough? b) You can't stand to vote for ANY R? c) some other reason?

I was a Ron Paul campaigner and will be for Rand also. So, yeah. I may even go to the Republican state convention again.

But if the GOP nominates yet another neocon clone, intent on preserving the status quo (welfare, warfare, bailouts, domestic police state, debt...), then do not count on my support.

 

[Dead Duck]

I was a Ron Paul campaigner and will be for Rand also.

Wow -
Well, you can't blame anyone but yourself for that.


















Oh - You were bragging.....now that's funny.