Newt or Mitt if you had to decide.

[Smokepole]

Mark Levin has only 2 choices on the ballot in the state of Virginia: Romney and Paul. Levin said he'd rather vote for Mitt Romney. A socialist, tax-raising, big-spending, bailout loving, crony-capitalist, gun-grabber... rather than the most constitutional candidate we've seen on a presidential ballot in decades.

I used to like Levin, read one of his books. But he's shown his true colors this cycle, pretty openly. He tears down Ron Paul daily, and props up/defends establishment losers.

He is has torn all of them down on regular basis. I go tired of listening to it all earlier on. But, his choices are have narrowed dramatically as they are and have for all of us. Thanks to the MSM and the Republican power structure. I am just as upset with the Tea Party for not keeping the pressure on as they did in 2010. The Presidential Primaries is when the pressure should have been the greatest, but they peaked with the Mid-Terms I guess.

We are only going to have ONE shot at saving our country and if we don't take it's our fault. We will have given up and will leave our kids and grandkids to the Socialists and if they can take it back it will take multiple generations.

Sorry, but I don't intend to do that to my progeny, The fight has to continue. And any one of the Repub. candidates is better than Oblabber. Then we go to work and find the best guy out there.

 

[J_Wales]

Mark Levin has only 2 choices on the ballot in the state of Virginia: Romney and Paul. Levin said he'd rather vote for Mitt Romney. A socialist, tax-raising, big-spending, bailout loving, crony-capitalist, gun-grabber... rather than the most constitutional candidate we've seen on a presidential ballot in decades.

I used to like Levin, read one of his books. But he's shown his true colors this cycle, pretty openly. He tears down Ron Paul daily, and props up/defends establishment losers.

The thing that is amazing is that if you go back and read one of his books "Liberty and Tyranny", particularly the Epilogue - A Conservative Manifesto, Paul's platform would fit virtually to a T.

I agree. Levin has been disappointing to put it mildly.

 

[Al B]

Presidente Barack Obama said in his and Michelles victory speech ......

"UH Am....I would like to say thank you to...aaaa....um... all the 'puplicans and in...dependents, for staying....um home and helping me ahhh....saddle up and ride this ...ummmm... country four more ...ahhh... years.


Seriously ??? Just roll over, stick your a$$es in the air and quit???

 

[88GT]

Didnt a very smart man define insanity as..."Repeating the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result?"

Yes, which is why repeating myself is getting frustrating.

You still haven't explained how we plan for more than four years at a time. You have only succeeded in showing how we have chosen the same option every four years.

You seem to think that WHO we choose is relevant. My point is that WHEN we choose is the issue at hand. Let's take Paul. Even if he is elected, we are still only planning for the next four years. since you seem to be placing such an emphasis on who is chosen, then perhaps you could explain how changing our historical voting patterns and voting for Paul is planning for anything beyond four years. Note, planning is not the same thing as consequences. If anything a Paul victory only underscores my point since at the end of his four years, we'll be right back in the same spot we are today: choosing a path for the next four years.

This is a time issue, not a ideological issue.

 

[steveh_131]

Yes, which is why repeating myself is getting frustrating.

You still haven't explained how we plan for more than four years at a time. You have only succeeded in showing how we have chosen the same option every four years.

I've explained this a few times as my own personal reason, but I'll say it again. It has very little to do with this current election cycle.

Paul has achieved numbers that people never thought could happen in a GOP race. Whether he wins or not, that is something great. It's time for the Republican party to understand that there are people out here who want liberty. Real, true liberty.

They've spent years throwing us rotten table scraps, and we've taken them because hey, it's better than the **** sandwich that the Democrats want to feed us, right?

No more. I intend to stand up with the other supporters of liberty, and let them know with my single, solitary vote that I won't take their scraps any more. If they want my vote they're going to have to put up some candidates who won't sell my country to the highest bidder.

There hasn't been enough of us standing together to make much of a difference before. But Paul is taking serious numbers away from these GOP clowns, and that's something they can't ignore next cycle. Even if Paul loses, the next batch of candidates are going to realize that they better start playing our tune if they want to win.

And that's how I plan beyond the next four years.

 

[KLB]

You have the option of moving the party to the right by voting accordingly (if enough people do that) to cost them elections, and making it plain to them that, in order to win, they'll need to put up more conservative candidates. This can take a bit of time - you can't turn a battleship on a dime.

Which right? Conservative how? Social or Fiscal? Seems to me these are two distinct things and seldom is a distinction made. When a poll asks if you are conservative, a person believing in either of these or both would say yes. Everyone saying yes though would not be both.

 

[ATM]

...If you don't vote, don't you dare complain when he gets back in. EVER!!!

I'll complain all I like.

I complained when I didn't vote, I complained after I voted "against" Obama for a slightly different "evil" and it failed, and I'll continue to complain when my next vote doesn't line up with that failed strategy many still suggest following.

If Ron Paul is not the Republican candidate, my vote will be counted against both parties this year (sweet, double bonus round!) If that leaves Obama in office, guess what... I don't care... and I will still complain.

Eventually, people will recognize that their unfailing support for the second worst party (in a one-dimensional, left-right game of only 2 parties) has become a guaranteed loss.
Maybe then they will look at a second dimension: Q8. What is the Nolan Chart?

I would propose that time is the third dimension. Despite the always present panic and pressure to be a one-dimensional, immediate issue voter, some of us are willing to suffer short term (4, 8, 12 years) in the hopes that the consequences of the losses we allow (or help to cause) by not aligning our votes according to that failed strategy above (which only ensured our continual demise as a nation even when it has worked in the past) will cause the populace to snap out of their stupor and for other parties to rise up and actually earn our support.

Dang, that was a long sentence. What the heck am I doing in the politics section, anyway?
I should probably go back to Carry Issues or the Breakroom for a while.

I need a Tylenol. Sorry.

 

[jbombelli]

Which right? Conservative how? Social or Fiscal? Seems to me these are two distinct things and seldom is a distinction made. When a poll asks if you are conservative, a person believing in either of these or both would say yes. Everyone saying yes though would not be both.

*sigh*

Those details are meaningless in the context of what I am actually trying to say..

If enough like-minded people would quit voting for the guy the GOP puts up, and instead vote for the guy whose philosophy is more in tune with what they want instead of holding their noses and voting for the plate full of elephant dung, and it was costing the GOP elections, the GOP would ultimately HAVE to move in that direction (WHICHEVER direction that is) if they want to ever win again. THAT is the point.

That is how you affect the party, and it will take more than one election cycle to accomplish.

 

[Phil502]

I'll complain all I like.

I complained when I didn't vote, I complained after I voted "against" Obama for a slightly different "evil" and it failed, and I'll continue to complain when my next vote doesn't line up with that failed strategy many still suggest following.

If Ron Paul is not the Republican candidate, my vote will be counted against both parties this year (sweet, double bonus round!) If that leaves Obama in office, guess what... I don't care... and I will still complain.

Eventually, people will recognize that their unfailing support for the second worst party (in a one-dimensional, left-right game of only 2 parties) has become a guaranteed loss.
Maybe then they will look at a second dimension: Q8. What is the Nolan Chart?

I would propose that time is the third dimension. Despite the always present panic and pressure to be a one-dimensional, immediate issue voter, some of us are willing to suffer short term (4, 8, 12 years) in the hopes that the consequences of the losses we allow (or help to cause) by not aligning our votes according to that failed strategy above (which only ensured our continual demise as a nation even when it has worked in the past) will cause the populace to snap out of their stupor and for other parties to rise up and actually earn our support.

Dang, that was a long sentence. What the heck am I doing in the politics section, anyway?
I should probably go back to Carry Issues or the Breakroom for a while.

I need a Tylenol. Sorry.

So you really think if Obama maybe wins because of some votes go 3rd party then in 2016 everything will be better? Everybody will become enlightened? Suddenly true conservatives will emerge to correct it all? I think if Obama gets another 4 or Hillary then gets 4 or 8 after we can never recover ever, the agenda will be cemented in place with handouts and legislation aimed at the takers in this country that produce nothing but mouths to suck the system dry. It probably will happen anyway, even with Obama out, I have no faith left anymore in people changing. This country has been filling up with takers and people that hold regular jobs that I had as a high school kid, such as delivering papers, cutting grass and bussing tables.

Great post by the way, I just don't agree with you.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

Yes, which is why repeating myself is getting frustrating.

You still haven't explained how we plan for more than four years at a time. You have only succeeded in showing how we have chosen the same option every four years.

You seem to think that WHO we choose is relevant. My point is that WHEN we choose is the issue at hand. Let's take Paul. Even if he is elected, we are still only planning for the next four years. since you seem to be placing such an emphasis on who is chosen, then perhaps you could explain how changing our historical voting patterns and voting for Paul is planning for anything beyond four years. Note, planning is not the same thing as consequences. If anything a Paul victory only underscores my point since at the end of his four years, we'll be right back in the same spot we are today: choosing a path for the next four years.

This is a time issue, not a ideological issue.

This is a government power running out of control issue. It is collusion between the two partys, there I said it.

Federal Election Commission (FEC). They create the barriers to entry..errr.. I mean make up the rules for the (s)election proccess. It is perfectly fair with 6 members making up "election" rules on the fly.

These 6 very fair people are appointed by the president and then confirmed buy the congress. Dems and Republicans cannot monopolize it because get this, no more that 3 members of the same political party can make up the total of 6 commisioners!

This would be like the NFL letting the patriots and the giants make up new rules for football every year (including playoffs)

So if you want to know why we cant get a "good candidate" anymore, this is part of the problem. This is a system. They play a game to split up the people into two camps, Anti democrat and anti republican. It works well when we all play our part and vote republican or democrat. This way we NEVER get a democrat or a republican. wink,wink.

Im sorry I cannot answer any more than I already have other than to say its a game we will lose even faster by accepting mediocracy. I will NOT support any candidate who does not scare the crap out of the establishment (on both alleged "sides") and Ron Paul scares them both.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

Hey ATM, I took that test Nolan Chart Survey and it said I was a communist.

 

[ATM]

So you really think if Obama maybe wins because of some votes go 3rd party then in 2016 everything will be better? Everybody will become enlightened? Suddenly true conservatives will emerge to correct it all?...

We will either correct or crash.

I'm just done listening to or supporting those who advocate little more than adjusting the cruise control setting.

 

[Smokepole]

I've explained this a few times as my own personal reason, but I'll say it again. It has very little to do with this current election cycle.

Paul has achieved numbers that people never thought could happen in a GOP race. Whether he wins or not, that is something great. It's time for the Republican party to understand that there are people out here who want liberty. Real, true liberty.

They've spent years throwing us rotten table scraps, and we've taken them because hey, it's better than the **** sandwich that the Democrats want to feed us, right?

No more. I intend to stand up with the other supporters of liberty, and let them know with my single, solitary vote that I won't take their scraps any more. If they want my vote they're going to have to put up some candidates who won't sell my country to the highest bidder.

There hasn't been enough of us standing together to make much of a difference before. But Paul is taking serious numbers away from these GOP clowns, and that's something they can't ignore next cycle. Even if Paul loses, the next batch of candidates are going to realize that they better start playing our tune if they want to win.

And that's how I plan beyond the next four years.

^^^^ THIS ^^^^

Exactly! Even though I think that Paul would be a Foreign policy disaster, I agree with his fiscal policy ideas 1000%. And the fact that he is getting the traction that he is tells me that people are paying attention in ever increasing numbers and are starting to "get it." It bodes well for the next cycle too. That is if we can keep the focus where it belongs and keep teaching those that don't see it yet and the Tea Party can apply the pressure again and not slow down after the next set of mid-terms.

What I won't do, after the primaries is vote off in any way that will even remotely give Oblabber a chance to win. IF it means holding my nose and voting for Romney or Gingrich, so be it. I'll do that and vote only for Tea Party and obviously conservative candidates for every other office that I can vote for. This is the only way that we have a chance of keeping our Republic. There is too much at stake to do anything else. We have NEVER been here before and I prefer not to see it get any worse.

Vote NO-BAMA!!!

 

[88GT]

This is a government power running out of control issue. It is collusion between the two partys, there I said it.

Federal Election Commission (FEC). They create the barriers to entry..errr.. I mean make up the rules for the (s)election proccess. It is perfectly fair with 6 members making up "election" rules on the fly.

These 6 very fair people are appointed by the president and then confirmed buy the congress. Dems and Republicans cannot monopolize it because get this, no more that 3 members of the same political party can make up the total of 6 commisioners!

This would be like the NFL letting the patriots and the giants make up new rules for football every year (including playoffs)

So if you want to know why we cant get a "good candidate" anymore, this is part of the problem. This is a system. They play a game to split up the people into two camps, Anti democrat and anti republican. It works well when we all play our part and vote republican or democrat. This way we NEVER get a democrat or a republican. wink,wink.

Im sorry I cannot answer any more than I already have other than to say its a game we will lose even faster by accepting mediocracy. I will NOT support any candidate who does not scare the crap out of the establishment (on both alleged "sides") and Ron Paul scares them both.

You're not paying attention. This isn't about WHO. It's not even about HOW. IT's about WHEN. We could vote for Ron Paul types every election cycle and it would still only be planning for four years at a time. Everything you mentioned is spot on and a reflection of everything that is wrong with our political system. But it is completely irrelevant to the fact that we choose the President once every four years and therefore can only plan for our country's direction in four year increments. Go back to the original post I quoted. And tell me how we plan for something beyond four years in the election of president. How is a vote for Paul now in 2012 directly affecting presidential choices 10 years from now? Paul won't be the president then. You only hope his installation as president now has CONSEQUENCES that extend beyond his time in office, but his election now only sets policy for the next four years. And we'll start it all over again in 2016, and again in 2020, and again in 2024, and so on.

 

[Smokepole]

I'll complain all I like.

I complained when I didn't vote, I complained after I voted "against" Obama for a slightly different "evil" and it failed, and I'll continue to complain when my next vote doesn't line up with that failed strategy many still suggest following.

If Ron Paul is not the Republican candidate, my vote will be counted against both parties this year (sweet, double bonus round!) If that leaves Obama in office, guess what... I don't care... and I will still complain.

Eventually, people will recognize that their unfailing support for the second worst party (in a one-dimensional, left-right game of only 2 parties) has become a guaranteed loss.
Maybe then they will look at a second dimension: Q8. What is the Nolan Chart?

I would propose that time is the third dimension. Despite the always present panic and pressure to be a one-dimensional, immediate issue voter, some of us are willing to suffer short term (4, 8, 12 years) in the hopes that the consequences of the losses we allow (or help to cause) by not aligning our votes according to that failed strategy above (which only ensured our continual demise as a nation even when it has worked in the past) will cause the populace to snap out of their stupor and for other parties to rise up and actually earn our support.

Dang, that was a long sentence. What the heck am I doing in the politics section, anyway?
I should probably go back to Carry Issues or the Breakroom for a while.

I need a Tylenol. Sorry.

I agree. And any other time in our history I would say have at it. BUT NOT NOW. There is too much at stake.

Do you want the Federal Gov't headed by Obama to continue to run roughshod over the Congress and push even more Liberal policies that will cripple and ruin our country. Because they will if you give them the chance. Do you want to see a Supreme Court with more Kagans and Sotomayors with the possibilities for losing your right to keep and bear arms, do you want a more powerful EPA, DEPT OF ED, FTC, FDA, etc. that continue to push ever more Liberal, Socialist claptrap agendas that tell you more and more what you can do and when you can do it? That make it harder and harder for individuals to do for themselves and businesses to stay in business and profit? Do you want to see ObamaCare become so ingrained in our society that it would take generations to unravel if at all. The cost of doing everything that doesn't go away will be through the roof.

It is interesting that some people that complain and rail about the things listed above and that the current administration and Democrat party are doing and want to do, will willingly follow a course of action that could guarantee that very outcome. Condemning their themselves, descendents and friends to a country which in other circumstances they would fight hard to prevent. All because they insist on making a statement about who they had to vote for.

I wonder what Einstein would have to say about those individuals.

 

[DRob]

Skipped

I skipped almost all of the responses so I apologize if this is a duplicate but..............

First I want to propose a change in the OP's wording from "if" Ron Paul drops out to "when" Ron Paul drops out then point out, at that point we will be arguing over whether we should elect a guy named Mitt or a guy named Newt.

The only argument I have is either will do if the other choice is named Barack!

 

[Smokepole]

*sigh*

Those details are meaningless in the context of what I am actually trying to say..

If enough like-minded people would quit voting for the guy the GOP puts up, and instead vote for the guy whose philosophy is more in tune with what they want instead of holding their noses and voting for the plate full of elephant dung, and it was costing the GOP elections, the GOP would ultimately HAVE to move in that direction (WHICHEVER direction that is) if they want to ever win again. THAT is the point.

That is how you affect the party, and it will take more than one election cycle to accomplish.

Absolutely. And the time and place to this in during the primaries and mid-year elections. And Presidential elections that don't have the ability to dramatically alter the very makeup of our country for the next several generations at least. The outcome could make this country unlivable for serious liberty minded individuals and take more years than I have left to fix. That is the problem here. Any point in history other than one like this I would agree with you. Just not now. I couldn't in good conscience do it to my kids. I love them and their chances at a life of liberty and happiness too much. I will not vote in a way that my actions will give the Libs to opportunity to take that away from my kids, friends and family. EVER !!!

 

[ATM]

...We could vote for Ron Paul types every election cycle and it would still only be planning for four years at a time.

...How is a vote for Paul now in 2012 directly affecting presidential choices 10 years from now?

If I vote for Paul in 2012, honestly believing that it will not put him in office, I am throwing that vote away according to a 4-year outlook.

However, if I am looking at 8 or 12 years down the road, I may consider that vote to be an investment seed sewn to bring about future stronger choices or party shifts.

I care less about having voted for or against the eventual 2012 winner than I do to adding numbers and impact to the group that calls for better choices.

Paul won't be the president then. You only hope his installation as president now has CONSEQUENCES that extend beyond his time in office, but his election now only sets policy for the next four years. And we'll start it all over again in 2016, and again in 2020, and again in 2024, and so on.

Nope, if he gets elected that would merely be a nice side-effect of the larger reason I am casting my vote. I will not be voting for any lesser "more of the same" just to do it again with worse candidates again 4 years from now.

 

[Sabreur]

Neither. They both disgust me. Romney is just an Obama clone with an "R" by his name, and Newt is an unfaithful, conceited, and thoroughly untrustworthy war-monger. Icky.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

You're not paying attention. This isn't about WHO. It's not even about HOW. IT's about WHEN. We could vote for Ron Paul types every election cycle and it would still only be planning for four years at a time. Everything you mentioned is spot on and a reflection of everything that is wrong with our political system. But it is completely irrelevant to the fact that we choose the President once every four years and therefore can only plan for our country's direction in four year increments. Go back to the original post I quoted. And tell me how we plan for something beyond four years in the election of president. How is a vote for Paul now in 2012 directly affecting presidential choices 10 years from now? Paul won't be the president then. You only hope his installation as president now has CONSEQUENCES that extend beyond his time in office, but his election now only sets policy for the next four years. And we'll start it all over again in 2016, and again in 2020, and again in 2024, and so on.

I had written a response, but I think ATM's post above said it better than mine.