Romney chooses Ryan

[Willie]

Too bad Ryan cant debate Biden and Obama at the same time...

[ame="http://youtu.be/zPxMZ1WdINs"]http://youtu.be/zPxMZ1WdINs[/ame]

 

[Yup!]

People, people....think about what you are doing. If we continue to vote for essentially the SAME PEOPLE but with different names.....we will continue to get the SAME RESULT. OVER & OVER again. This is why we should "waste" our vote on a third party candidate. We are voting for the future. we are making a statement. The idea is that little by little we increase the percentage of the vote a third party ticket takes until one day we CAN WIN. It will take a while but I like to think it possible.

I'm throwing in with these folks:

Libertarian Party | Maximum Freedom, Minimum Government

I visited your link. And you almost had me convinced until I read this: "The Libertarian party is America's third largest party, founded in 1971" says the website. So essentially in 40 years the party has failed to make a dent in the political landscape of the US. So according to you, yes One day YOU CAN WIN, and yes it will take awhile. When you get considerably closer I'll look again. Until then, I don't have another 40 years to wait.

 

[.45 Dave]

People, people....think about what you are doing. If we continue to vote for essentially the SAME PEOPLE but with different names.....we will continue to get the SAME RESULT. OVER & OVER again. This is why we should "waste" our vote on a third party candidate. We are voting for the future. we are making a statement. The idea is that little by little we increase the percentage of the vote a third party ticket takes until one day we CAN WIN. It will take a while but I like to think it possible.

I'm throwing in with these folks:

Libertarian Party | Maximum Freedom, Minimum Government

Fine. But in that time it takes you to get to that day you can win, the Republic will be lost. You are voting for a day that will be gone before it will have time to arrive.

edit: Never mind--
It's simply not worth it.

 

[Libertarian01]

Romney just gave away the election - Unless...

To All,

I will share my opinion on the choice for VP by Gov. Romney.

My basic thought is as follows. The proposed Ryan plan will kill medicare as we know it. It really will. For those over 50 there is no change, but for those under 50 a whole new system.

This to my thinking is a HUGE negative for the running mate. This will give President Obamas campaign ammunition for the entire election. Seniors vote, and seniors do not want their services messed with. It will not matter that the program doesn't affect them. It will be sold that it could and that is all it will take.

While conservatives will not have a problem with this it will fire up the Democratic base and probably alienate independents who don't give much thought to the long term fiscal viability of medicare. It will also give the AARP massive ammunition against Gov. Romney.

It does not matter if the Ryan Plan is good or not. That is irrelevant. If you are running for national office you do NOT want to attack one of the primary entitlement programs during an election year. That is, in my mind, political suicide.

Yes, Congressman Ryan will fire up the Republican base, but so what? He will fire up the Democratic base just as much who to this point have been less than thrilled with President Obama.

I can see attack adds from the Democrats now through the entire election. "He is out to kill Medicare", "Romney and Ryan want to put grandma and grandpa in the poor house", "Republicans want to strip away a program you have paid for", etc etc etc. That is exact what I would do. It doesn't matter if it is all true, it is partly true and it could force the Romney campaign on the defensive for monthes. Unless...

---

Unless Gov. Romney EMBRACES a reform platform for ALL government entitlement programs. If Gov. Romney comes out swinging that "We will reform Medicare, we will reform Medicaid, we will fix social security, we will bring fiscal reform and sustainability to our most expensive programs," then he might have a huge shot at putting President Obama on the defensive for the entire campaign.

By putting the Ryan Plan front and center as the foundation of reform for every entitlement program I could see Gov. Romney having a shot at defeating Pres. Obama. This would force President Obama to begin to defend these programs with real facts that cannot be done. These programs will drag us into bankruptcy as they now exist. I just do not see this maneuver being embraced by the Romney campaign.

I see the Democrats going on the offensive, gaining momentum, and keeping it going while Gov. Romney and Congressman Ryan are put in a constant defensive stance for the entire campaign, thus loosing the election.

By the way, while I do not support the Ryan plan it is important as reform is needed! We must work to reform or remove these programs so as to keep our government from tipping over the economic precipice into ruin. So in that sense I support and commend Congressman Ryan for attempting such a move. Regrettably, I do not think the timing during an election is a politically prudent move.

Regards,

Doug

 

[theweakerbrother]

The bus has already crashed through the railing. We're all just arguing about who is going to sit in the driver's seat before it crashes into the hillside. Weeeeeeeeee

 

[Willie]

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I visited your link. And you almost had me convinced until I read this: "The Libertarian party is America's third largest party, founded in 1971" says the website. So essentially in 40 years the party has failed to make a dent in the political landscape of the US. So according to you, yes One day YOU CAN WIN, and yes it will take awhile. When you get considerably closer I'll look again. Until then, I don't have another 40 years to wait.

Look, I respect your ability to decide for yourself who to vote for but let's take a look at this logic for a second.

You are going to WAIT until there is a bandwagon to jump onto even if you think there is another, BETTER choice rather than putting in some work, effort and maybe a little cash to help redirect your country in a better direction?

No wonder this country is in the shape we are in. I'm totally fine if you don't want to support a candidate based on their platform, record, experience or whatever but not supporting someone because it isn't the "cool thing to do" just doesn't make any sense. If everyone waited for everyone else to pick a better candidate we would just keep digging ourselves deeper and deeper into dept... Oh wait...

This reminds me of people who pick their favorite sports team based on who they think will win. Everybody likes to back a winner, even if we all lose in the end.

 

[NYFelon]

relevance?

 

[Yup!]

Look, I respect your ability to decide for yourself who to vote for but let's take a look at this logic for a second.

You are going to WAIT until there is a bandwagon to jump onto even if you think there is another, BETTER choice rather than putting in some work, effort and maybe a little cash to help redirect your country in a better direction?

No wonder this country is in the shape we are in. I'm totally fine if you don't want to support a candidate based on their platform, record, experience or whatever but not supporting someone because it isn't the "cool thing to do" just doesn't make any sense. If everyone waited for everyone else to pick a better candidate we would just keep digging ourselves deeper and deeper into dept... Oh wait...

This reminds me of people who pick their favorite sports team based on who they think will win. Everybody likes to back a winner, even if we all lose in the end.

Go Yankees!

I've made it clear in previous posts, that Johnson is not my guy, regardless of party affiliation. This post in particular is further evidence on my behalf that the majority of the principals of the party do not align with my views. With that said, I'm open to the notion that the libertarians could have, in the future, put forth a candidate who I feel represents me better. If that time comes I'll do the research.

I don't vote party, I vote issues.

 

[pudly]

Looks like Romney/Ryan aren't having a problem getting people to attend their rally in NC:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/08/this-is-what-2012-looks-like-lines-around-the-block-at-romney-ryan-rally-in-high-point-nc/

 

[.45 Dave]

Libertarian votes in an election as critical as this is amounts to nothing less than the suicide of the Republic. More than a wasted vote, it gives power to a man that is intent on destroying the country. I hope those who vote Libertarian this time don't end up like Col. Nicholson in this clip.

[ame]http://youtu.be/PskoqCtRFD4[/ame]

 

[Willie]

relevance?

Down to earth guy...

He even does catfish noodling...

 

[Classic Liberal]

Down to earth guy...

He even does catfish noodling...

He likes bailouts of all flavors, too.

 

[theweakerbrother]

He likes bailouts of all flavors, too.

And making the Patriot Act permanent.

 

[mrjarrell]

Down to earth guy...

He even does catfish noodling...

John Kerry went hunting, too. Doesn't make them anything but vote panderers.

 

[WebHobbit]

I visited your link. And you almost had me convinced until I read this: "The Libertarian party is America's third largest party, founded in 1971" says the website. So essentially in 40 years the party has failed to make a dent in the political landscape of the US. So according to you, yes One day YOU CAN WIN, and yes it will take awhile. When you get considerably closer I'll look again. Until then, I don't have another 40 years to wait.

And this attitude is why we have the wonderful choices we enjoy today. Have a good time voting for the lessor of two evils. I understand the full-face gas masks work better than the old fashioned clothespin on the nose. Although they may think you're a terrorist if you wear it to the polls.

We have to start somewhere. They haven't seen much traction in 40 years for a couple of different reasons:

1) Most Americans really don't give a crap about politics and MANY don't vote at all.

2) The web wasn't around 40 years ago. Traction SHOULD be easier to attain now a days. (hope)

3) Lets face it things were not all that bad until the last 15 years or so. The argument could be made that we didn't NEED a third party as bad as we do NOW.

Lastly I don't claim to have all the answers. I'm not much into politics in general....most of these guys make me wanna GAG....but it seems like we have given both parties more than enough chances.

 

[WebHobbit]

John Kerry went hunting, too. Doesn't make them anything but vote panderers.

Heh...know you're talking about Ryan but I've always thought of Romney as the John Kerry of the Republican party.

 

[hacksawfg]

But it does matter. If for no other reason, to send a message that the incumbents, are not safe. Any future elected official should understand this going into their new term.

You're right. If a third party got bigger numbers, it would absolutely prove that incumbents are safe and nothing is ever going to change.

As petty as this sounds, I want someone who represents the whole nation to "Look Presidential", admittedly I don't know what the look is. Pres. Obama has the look, but IMO that's all. I've yet to be impressed with the way Ron Paul carries himself, and I can not imagine him meeting with foreign leaders and being taken seriously. It's more than what you believe in. Its how you will interact with the WHOLE world. In some instances, I'll concede a smaller issue, to win in the end.

So I should presume by this measure you considered Clinton instead of Dole?

I think its more than that. I think the Liberal base, deep down fundamentally believe that while they want their candidate to win, the "Lesser of two evils" scenario is for the good of the nation. So only the diehards dig in.

The Conservative base obviously holds this to be true as well. That's why Romney is in and not Newt, Santorum, etc.

So, do you not feel a Romney/Ryan ticket is working to make this better? If Romney's real agenda was to grow govt, kill jobs, ban guns, raise the deficit, why would he pick Ryan as has his running mate? I think, more than before, that Romney, at least right now, firmly believes that the way to help you, and others in your situation, is to get the economy back in shape. His pick of Ryan is the best person to help him do that.

"We can’t have a nation of slackers and then have me have to sit in the Judiciary Committee listening to them argue that there’s work that Americans won’t do, so we have to import people to do the work that Americans won’t do, and borrow money to pay the welfare for people that won’t work. That is a foolish thing for a nation to do. We’ve gotta get this country back to work and get those people out of the slacker rolls and onto the employed rolls." Rep. Steve King, IA

Wow, yeah, I was a total slacker, because the easiest thing to do in the world was be a stay at home dad (can't afford childcare, kids too young for school), look for jobs that weren't there, and collect a paycheck that was 75% less than I was making before I lost my job.

"As bad as it sounds, ultimately we do have to sometimes accept a wage that's less than we had at our previous job in order to get back to work and allow the economy to get started again." Sen Rand Paul, KY

That's funny, because I had FIVE offers every week from people who said "you know, with an MBA and a PE, you would fit in great here in McDonalds." With all the networking events, job fairs, etc. I had five people actually contact me about work the WHOLE time I was unemployed (and I looked outside of Indiana, too). Funniest thing is, I wound up working for a company based in Canada. Fear not intrepid INGO users, my tax dollars will still go to fund the TSA, give tax breaks to those who "create jobs" because that reduces the deficit, and of course the BATF who must approve your Class III purchases.

No, the Republicans are no friends of mine on this issue. I sold guns, my truck, and a lot of other stuff to make ends meet. I used my unemployment money to put gas in my car to go to job fairs, buy paper for resumes, and keep the phone working so I could make calls. I had to pay sitters to watch the kids so I could leave the house. If you think making tax cuts to the wealthiest people in the country would have made a damn bit of difference in increased hiring, you are WRONG. If they had had their way, there would be no benefits. I would have lost my house, my credit rating would have been destroyed even more that it already is, and I would have had even less time to look for work. You know who fought for me in that case? Not the people who said they supported "hard-working Americans." The Democrats. And as much as I hate their growth of the government, I have to at least give them credit for helping me make it through probably the single toughest period I've gone through in my life.

So if everyone can carry a gun, but no stores are open to carry them into, and you don't have $0.10 to buy a bullet, does it really matter? I firmly believe "Shall not be infringed' those words were put in the specifically. I'd voting Romney/Ryan on the premise that gun control, as currently written into law will not change under this administration, they will be to busy with the Economy issue to spend time on a 2A battle. Your 2A rights need to be restored at the local level, and that is where your Liberal vote should really be best used. The more liberals we have at the local level, eventually someone with the clout to make a difference globally will rise to the top.

I'm certainly hoping you meant Libertarian there. Spell-check issue? Show me how many tax-breaks have been given to small business vs. Fortune 500 companies and big banks by Romney, maybe you can change my mind.

Great points, but the gay population makes up around 4% of the total population. At this stage in our country, is the #1 issue Gay Rights? Would it not be wise to tackle and issue that effects 100% of the country, rather than spending time solely benefiting 4%, or the Gun Community, which I"m guessing is closer to 50%. 100% of us, need the economy back on track. Same point as before, at the local level, elect someone who should be more community focused, and helping the special interest groups.

How hard would it be to make gay marriage legal? It's an issue that shouldn't even BE an issue, but the fact of the matter is there are a lot of independent voters who think it's absolutely no business of the government to say. There may be only 4% of the population that is gay, but there are a LOT of straight people as well who support that right and wouldn't vote for a candidate who would restrict it. They're called independents for a reason.

I've agreed that ALL budgets can be cut. But when Johnson comes right out and says 43%, without the numbers to show why, he's no better than any other politician. If he cuts the DOD budget 42%, some will call him a failure. If he cuts it 44% the other crown will call him a failure. Until he's sitting in the seat, and has access to all the data, and understands the opposing point of view can he really make a claim like this.

I don't recall seeing too many details from others on how they would cut budgets either, typically the details don't completely come out until they're in office.

Don't get me started on Earmarks. I have no clue how Funding for Soccer Balls for circus clowns, ends up in a bill to limit abortion. (made that up) - But the crap that gets put into a bill to 'buy a vote' is truly an issue.

At last we agree on something. I will say this, just like Obama coming out and saying he supports gay marriage, giving amnesty to illegals via executive order, and Romney flip-flopping on gun owners rights, I don't think either of these guys wouldn't sell his mother for votes. Would you have me believe if there was a Norway style attack on US soil for example and the RKBA suddenly became very unpopular, that Romney would do the right thing and stand up for our rights?

 

[jedi]

I'm ok with an assault weapon ban, to some extent. The extent being I don't own any, nor do I plan to, so it doesn't personally effect me. If left to me, no I wouldn't ban them, but if someone else does, well, it's not a battle I care enough about to engage in.

First they came for the "Assault Style Rifles", and I did not speak out - because I did not own an "Assault Style Rifle".
Then they cam for the handguns, and I did not speak out - because I did not own a handgun.
They they came for the shotguns, and I did not speak out - because I did not own a shotgun.
Then then came for hunting rifle - and there was no one left to speak out for me an owner of a hunting rifle.

Sound familiar? You (Yup!) all I have for you is

Libertarian votes in an election as critical as this is amounts to nothing less than the suicide of the Republic. More than a wasted vote, it gives power to a man that is intent on destroying the country. I hope those who vote Libertarian this time don't end up like Col. Nicholson in this clip.

http://youtu.be/PskoqCtRFD4

At least Col. Nicholson at least DID something and managed to blow up the bridge. All of you voting R are just extending the same corruption that has been ongoing for a long time now.

He likes bailouts of all flavors, too.

And making the Patriot Act permanent.

 

[Willie]

John Kerry went hunting, too. Doesn't make them anything but vote panderers.

Wrong.. Kerry went for photo op. Ryan IS a real bowhunter.

Just google Paul Ryan bowhunter.