Which Candidate Best Represents You and do You Intend to Support?

[buckstopshere]

The Libertarian anarchists have, predictably, mostly all appeared in this thread. Is it me or does their message still seem to be, a very compelling....."Agree with me, or you are stupid"? This method of persuasion has worked quite well in the past, and will be their future arrangement as well.

See, you've got us libertarian anarchist all wrong. It's not agree with me or you're stupid, it's stop being stupid and agree with liberty.

I don't appreciate the label of anarchist being lumped in with libertarians unless your definition of anarchist is someone who wants to eliminate .gov over reach and get back to constitutionally sound policy.

 

[Jim Duncan]

This could be quite a lengthy response, but for brevity's sake, I'll spare you the details.

As I've indicated, I have an inclination, not a flat out decision, to vote for Romney. The issues that I am concerned about, in no particular order:

Gun Control
The Economy
Taxes
Family Values
Social Security
Health Care
Foreign Relations
Immigration
Unemployment
The Housing Market
Balancing the Budget
National Debt

That's just off the top of my head. I fear many voters don't dig deep enough into the the candidate they vote for, and at times I've been Guilty of the same. I generally vote Republican because typically their overall beliefs fall in line with mine. As far as the Current Administration, I will concede the fact that what Pres. Obama has been working with may have been handed down from the previous administration. Regardless, it's been 4 years. I don't think we are much better off, and I feel we are moving in the wrong direction. I'm not naive enough to believe that the President has the ultimate authority to resolve any or all of these issues, however I think more could have been done. We continue to look for new problems and solutions rather that looking at the current problems. We spent 2 years working on a health care overhaul, that no matter how you feel about it personally, that time and energy could have been spent in one of the areas I mentioned above.

I'm sure this will spark other questions, so fire away.

So my strategy as of right now, is to Vote for the Candidate that has the best chance to change the current administration. If Mickey Mouse could garner enough votes, I'd be a Mousketeer!

Not a single mention of Liberty.

No worries though mate!

Most here stand not against your first point.... reasonable controls not withstanding.

No reason to expect others to stand for anything else.

 

[foszoe]

Not a single mention of Liberty.

No worries though mate!

Most here stand not against your first point.... reasonable controls not withstanding.

No reason to expect others to stand for anything else.

Depending on where he falls on each of his items, it may have been all about Liberty

 

[Yup!]

Thanks for the response Yup. I appreciate the fact that you're digging in to learn about these candidates. Of the top say 2 issues you've listed, what has your research uncovered where Romney has a fundamental difference in policy than Obama and what evidence has convinced you?

I agree with what you've stated. BHO inherited some BS from the previous administrations attempts at creating a policy state and then furthered them. Health care reform is easily solvable via the free market (see LASIK eye surgery) and these politicians are anything but stupid. So healthcare isn't about healthcare, as we all know.

Under the two party system, I can't recall a President who actually gave authority back to the states or citizens. Once they get the power in the oval office, the next man (woman) up has a primary duty, it seems, to move that ball further. I don't see anything in Romneys character that screams out liberty or reversing anything in play.

One of my primary interests is Gun Control. I was very disappointed to see Romney as the Republican Nominee (almost) because of how Massachusetts has not been changed, and remains one of the more difficult places to obtain a CHL. So I wrote to him, asking him to explain, I received the typical form letter in response telling me what a great american he is, and how is is Pro 2A. It didn't convince me.

I'm Catholic, and very much support the traditional family values that have been all over the news lately. I believe that protecting the "core" family is something that as Americans we should embrace. (If you are still reading, and haven't already hit the reply to blast me) To further explain, Im also very supportive of the individual to make the decisions they feel are best for their family. So I continue in my worship to fill the void that I think the country falls shot as a whole in. So to each his own, but the responsibility of our leaders should be to lead by example, and let the country determine its path. I feel that Romney will have the courage to put his personal beliefs aside, IF it is what the country is asking him to do. (I haven't looked hard enough for examples either for or against)

Defense spending. I've been in the military for the past 20 years. I've see the effects the spending cuts have had on the force first hand. Deployment rates are at an all time high, with many making 4-5 trips over seas. I don't believe in any case that Romney or Pres. Obama willing want to send troops into harms way, however, I feel, if the need arises, Romney will send us better equipped in the future by allowing the DOD budget to meet the needs of the service.

I"m pro-life, but it has to have a solid plan. Again, this becomes a personal choice. If we were to force the entire nation into a Pro-life world, we must do something to take care of the millions of children born into unfit situations. Again this is an area where i let my faith provide the comfort that I personally need, and feel the Gov't should stand clear.

I've personally met Romney while he was the Governor of MA, briefly, but it was a very sincere conversation, just him, his Aid, my boss and I. We spoke for about 5 minutes, but I got a sense of comfort from him. Granted he's the only major Political Figure I've met, so Im sure I wear blinders to some regard, but that is why I continue to do the research.

I'm confident in who I don't want. I'm not so confident in who I want instead. If it was a 3 party race, with similar odds amongst all three, it'd be a different story for me.

 

[stockmaker]

I say let's sit this one out and let the illegals, pets and deceased vote. I forgot they already do.

 

[Yup!]

I'll follow up with:

The Presidential debates also provide some insight. While I think its foolish to take what any of them say as gospel, it gives us ground to start new research.

There is a lot of time between now and the election. To further this, Romney has not picked a running mate yet. So unit I know who that person is, I'm not even locked in. If he chooses Charleston Heston, does that change the game?

 

[rbsangler]

I'll explain so as to save everyone looking it up on their own, not all Libertarians are libertarian anarchists. However, they each, absolutely know who they are, within themselves.

 

[Designer99]

I know Johnson isn't going to win, but that's not why I'm voting for him. I'm voting for him in hopes that the third party tide gets a little bigger every coming election...till the left-right monopoly is broken.

 

[hookedonjeep]

Johnson, if not Ron Paul - because Romney and Obamatard are the same....

 

[Yup!]

I know Johnson isn't going to win, but that's not why I'm voting for him. I'm voting for him in hopes that the third party tide gets a little bigger every coming election...till the left-right monopoly is broken.

I hope you live long enough to see it.

 

[hornadylnl]

I hope you live long enough to see it.

And you hope you aren't around long enough to see the continued republicrat policies collapse our country.

 

[VikingWarlord]

I'm supporting Gary Johnson, without a doubt.

There are some things I don't necessarily agree with him on but I also can't expect to agree 100% with any candidate on all issues. The most important ones for me are the economy, spending, foreign policy, education, and civil liberties/gun rights. Johnson's stance on those issues mirrors my own. The rest, I'm not overly concerned with.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The Constitution has to be the issue. Once you surrender that, the battle is lost regardless of the details about how it goes down.

 

[Bobby]

I voted "other." I plan on voting for Goode/Clymer as write-in candidates.

 

[rbsangler]

OK, so let's say Johnson should win the Presidency. Good! Now let's ask ourselves, what area of the Congress would he align himself with in order to start the rollback towards Constitutional governance? One might suggest that he would have to do quite a bit of compromising of his supporter's beliefs.....that is if he would hope to accomplish anything of substance. That or risk a term full of stonewalling and nothing getting done at all. The Constitution has it set up to prevent a single handed and unilateral implementation of permanent policy. Therefore, he would absolutely need to garner the favor of some majority group of Congressmen. Would it be with the Democrats in Congress? Or how about the Republicans? Many posters would claim that both of these bodies are identical, and that they equally suck. So who does he get to introduce bills, and to vote to pass these bills? Wouldn't Congress need to be largely sympathetic to Libertarian ideals? (ie, voted into office by citizens sympathetic to the Libertarian ideal.) One might suggest that going about sweeping changes to the train wreck we are in....doesn't start with the president at all, and in fact would likely better be left to a later step in the process, possibly years down the road. It's up to the voters to turn Congress around.....that is the task at hand....persuade the voters, without insulting them, that voting for Libertarian and Constitutionally motivated candidates is the thing to do. Now let's get to work!!

 

[hornadylnl]

OK, so let's say Johnson should win the Presidency. Good! Now let's ask ourselves, what area of the Congress would he align himself with in order to start the rollback towards Constitutional governance? One might suggest that he would have to do quite a bit of compromising of his supporter's beliefs.....that is if he would hope to accomplish anything of substance. That or risk a term full of stonewalling and nothing getting done at all. The Constitution has it set up to prevent a single handed and unilateral implementation of permanent policy. Therefore, he would absolutely need to garner the favor of some majority group of Congressmen. Would it be with the Democrats in Congress? Or how about the Republicans? Many posters would claim that both of these bodies are identical, and that they equally suck. So who does he get to introduce bills, and to vote to pass these bills? Wouldn't Congress need to be largely sympathetic to Libertarian ideals? (ie, voted into office by citizens sympathetic to the Libertarian ideal.) One might suggest that going about sweeping changes to the train wreck we are in....doesn't start with the president at all, and in fact would likely better be left to a later step in the process, possibly years down the road. It's up to the voters to turn Congress around.....that is the task at hand....persuade the voters, without insulting them, that voting for Libertarian and Constitutionally motivated candidates is the thing to do. Now let's get to work!!

Well, here's 95 house repubs (38 tea party repubs included) that Johnson can't count on.

S 679 | U.S. Congress Votes Database - The Washington PostThe Washington Post

 

[buckstopshere]

OK, so let's say Johnson should win the Presidency. Good! Now let's ask ourselves, what area of the Congress would he align himself with in order to start the rollback towards Constitutional governance? One might suggest that he would have to do quite a bit of compromising of his supporter's beliefs.....that is if he would hope to accomplish anything of substance. That or risk a term full of stonewalling and nothing getting done at all. The Constitution has it set up to prevent a single handed and unilateral implementation of permanent policy. Therefore, he would absolutely need to garner the favor of some majority group of Congressmen. Would it be with the Democrats in Congress? Or how about the Republicans? Many posters would claim that both of these bodies are identical, and that they equally suck. So who does he get to introduce bills, and to vote to pass these bills? Wouldn't Congress need to be largely sympathetic to Libertarian ideals? (ie, voted into office by citizens sympathetic to the Libertarian ideal.) One might suggest that going about sweeping changes to the train wreck we are in....doesn't start with the president at all, and in fact would likely better be left to a later step in the process, possibly years down the road. It's up to the voters to turn Congress around.....that is the task at hand....persuade the voters, without insulting them, that voting for Libertarian and Constitutionally motivated candidates is the thing to do. Now let's get to work!!

It's not always about what gets done but also what doesn't get done. They didn't call him Governor Veto for nothing. See the thread about presidential appointees. Johnson would veto that non sense down.

I agree that the state and congressional seats are gold. Getting a libertarian President who vetoes what isn't constitutional just might stop this progressive movement.

We have to stop before we can reverse. I see that constant veto as the stopping measure.

 

[MACHINEGUN]

WTF is Gary Johnson?

 

[hornadylnl]

WTF is Gary Johnson?

Pay no attention to Johnson. He loves liberty.

 

[buckstopshere]

WTF is Gary Johnson?

Gary Earl Johnson is an American businessman, a former Governor of New Mexico, and the Libertarian Party nominee for President of the United States in the 2012 election

WTF is google? It's your friend