Conquer Club

kentington wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:TGD has it right. Romney will not see an election victory as "oh, look at all those libertarians that voted for me, I should adopt parts of their ideology." Because he can't tell from simple vote counts.

He won't even see the Congressional elections as "oh, look at those libertarians that entered Congress. I should adopt parts of their ideology." Odds are their power won't be enough to challenge the established Republican positions (which are closer to the ones you espouse on this forum, anyway, so I don't know what kind of changes you're proposing to the Republican party) after accounting for the co-opting of a majority of the so called Tea Partiers.

He will see it as "I won! HAHAHAHA MONEY POWER MONEY POWER!"

This is why you vote for a third party. Votes in an election determine ballot access in many states as well as funding on the national level.

I will add to this the following:

- Media is interested in and receives money (indirectly) from and gives money to the established political parties (Republicans and Democrats). Media has no interest in third party candiates.
- You hear a lot from both Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals in the media and elsewhere that a third party vote is a wasted vote.
- A third party vote is not a wasted vote; rather, Republicans, Democrats, and media members do not want you to vote for a third party for the reasons above.

What is the closest a third party has gotten to be voted in?

Ross Perot's third party, whatever the hell that was called.

There have been other third parties in the history of the United States. I'll only be happy if we move to one of those multiparty systems that the European folks have.

Phatscotty wrote:

I thought Newsweek was a liberal media outlet? I'm being serious.

You would be punctilious in assuming that.

Newsweek is very Liberal

thegreekdog wrote:Let me ask you something - who did you vote for in the Republican primary this year?

Santorum, since Cain had already dropped out of the race. Of course, my primary was irrelevant since the delegates were picked at a caucus that I could not attend.

Night Strike wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Let me ask you something - who did you vote for in the Republican primary this year?

Santorum, since Cain had already dropped out of the race. Of course, my primary was irrelevant since the delegates were picked at a caucus that I could not attend.

Why not Ron Paul?

Of all those running in the primary Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich were the MOST representative of historical Republican big government types. Why in the marx would you vote for Santorum if you were ostensibly voting to change the direction of the Republican party?

thegreekdog wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Let me ask you something - who did you vote for in the Republican primary this year?

Santorum, since Cain had already dropped out of the race. Of course, my primary was irrelevant since the delegates were picked at a caucus that I could not attend.

Why not Ron Paul?

Of all those running in the primary Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich were the MOST representative of historical Republican big government types. Why in the marx would you vote for Santorum if you were ostensibly voting to change the direction of the Republican party?

Because I could not support Ron Paul's view that it is America's fault we were attacked on 9/11. That viewpoint is almost as bad as being a 9/11 Truther.

Must resist... cause-and-effect debate.... about the unintended consequences..... of hawkish US policies and the problem of blowback.

Night Strike wrote:
Because I could not support Ron Paul's view that it is America's fault we were attacked on 9/11. That viewpoint is almost as bad as being a 9/11 Truther.

What was Ron Paul's reasoning?

Phatscotty wrote:Newsweek is very Liberal

I disagree, I think that they are pretty middle of the road. Whenever they do large opinion pieces they always reserve the same space for the opposing view, but it comes in the next issue. They don't give time to crazy neo-conservatism though, just that Eisenhower-Reagan stuff.

Niall Ferguson's Newsweek story was a hatchet job. Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong both wrote up full takedowns in blog posts, and The Atlantic has a fact-check up as well. Consensus is that Ferguson's cover story crosses the line from partisan to frankly unethical in its manipulation of facts and data. A Newsweek spokeman admitted that they don't fact-check their articles: "we, like other news organisations today, rely on our writers to submit factually accurate material." That's a flimsy excuse for pushing sensationalist falsehoods on their decreasing audience; both Ferguson and Newsweek have committed an unfortunate lapse in integrity here.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0 ... k-edition/
Krugman's takedown.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... ma/261306/
The Atlantic's fact-check.

Night Strike wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Let me ask you something - who did you vote for in the Republican primary this year?

Santorum, since Cain had already dropped out of the race. Of course, my primary was irrelevant since the delegates were picked at a caucus that I could not attend.

Why not Ron Paul?

Of all those running in the primary Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich were the MOST representative of historical Republican big government types. Why in the marx would you vote for Santorum if you were ostensibly voting to change the direction of the Republican party?

Because I could not support Ron Paul's view that it is America's fault we were attacked on 9/11. That viewpoint is almost as bad as being a 9/11 Truther.

I mean... okay. Except he's right and everyone acknowledges that he's right. The reason for the attack was because of American intervention in the Middle East.

In a theater near you

thegreekdog wrote:I mean... okay. Except he's right and everyone acknowledges that he's right. The reason for the attack was because of American intervention in the Middle East.

Training the Taliban, or opposing the Taliban? I think a fair number of people support one or the other of those forms of intervention.

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I mean... okay. Except he's right and everyone acknowledges that he's right. The reason for the attack was because of American intervention in the Middle East.

Training the Taliban, or opposing the Taliban? I think a fair number of people support one or the other of those forms of intervention.

Either one really. Ron Paul wants to end US intervention in foreign affairs (unless directly affecting US security).

I would note that Paul did not oppose attacking Afghanistan. Suffice it to say, anyone who voted for someone other than Ron Paul on the basis of his statements regarding 9/11 is not acknowledging the truth of US foreign policy and its effect on foreign relations; frankly, a stereotypical Republican wants to increase foreign intervention and military spending (so do stereotypical Democrats), so it doesn't surprise me that NightStrike decided not to vote for Ron Paul on that basis. What surprises me is that NightStrike continues to define himself as being the antithesis of the stereotypical Republican.

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I mean... okay. Except he's right and everyone acknowledges that he's right. The reason for the attack was because of American intervention in the Middle East.

Training the Taliban, or opposing the Taliban? I think a fair number of people support one or the other of those forms of intervention.

Either one really. Ron Paul wants to end US intervention in foreign affairs (unless directly affecting US security).

I would note that Paul did not oppose attacking Afghanistan. Suffice it to say, anyone who voted for someone other than Ron Paul on the basis of his statements regarding 9/11 is not acknowledging the truth of US foreign policy and its effect on foreign relations; frankly, a stereotypical Republican wants to increase foreign intervention and military spending (so do stereotypical Democrats), so it doesn't surprise me that NightStrike decided not to vote for Ron Paul on that basis. What surprises me is that NightStrike continues to define himself as being the antithesis of the stereotypical Republican.

I did not oppose attacking Afghanistan either. I just thought we should have pulled out in about 30 days. But I was and am against Iraq war 100%.

thegreekdog wrote:I would note that Paul did not oppose attacking Afghanistan. Suffice it to say, anyone who voted for someone other than Ron Paul on the basis of his statements regarding 9/11 is not acknowledging the truth of US foreign policy and its effect on foreign relations; frankly, a stereotypical Republican wants to increase foreign intervention and military spending (so do stereotypical Democrats), so it doesn't surprise me that NightStrike decided not to vote for Ron Paul on that basis. What surprises me is that NightStrike continues to define himself as being the antithesis of the stereotypical Republican.

Because I actually support consolidating many of our overseas bases since they aren't really needed.

Night Strike wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I would note that Paul did not oppose attacking Afghanistan. Suffice it to say, anyone who voted for someone other than Ron Paul on the basis of his statements regarding 9/11 is not acknowledging the truth of US foreign policy and its effect on foreign relations; frankly, a stereotypical Republican wants to increase foreign intervention and military spending (so do stereotypical Democrats), so it doesn't surprise me that NightStrike decided not to vote for Ron Paul on that basis. What surprises me is that NightStrike continues to define himself as being the antithesis of the stereotypical Republican.

Because I actually support consolidating many of our overseas bases since they aren't really needed.

Do any of the former Republican presidential candidates support that?

thegreekdog wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I would note that Paul did not oppose attacking Afghanistan. Suffice it to say, anyone who voted for someone other than Ron Paul on the basis of his statements regarding 9/11 is not acknowledging the truth of US foreign policy and its effect on foreign relations; frankly, a stereotypical Republican wants to increase foreign intervention and military spending (so do stereotypical Democrats), so it doesn't surprise me that NightStrike decided not to vote for Ron Paul on that basis. What surprises me is that NightStrike continues to define himself as being the antithesis of the stereotypical Republican.

Because I actually support consolidating many of our overseas bases since they aren't really needed.

Do any of the former Republican presidential candidates support that?

Besides Ron Paul, probably not. Herman Cain may have, but he was chased out of the race before he could share anything beyond 9-9-9.

Courtesy of Politics Nation


I find it funny that Romney's likability is so low, and yet 44% of the people polled agree with him. That's like 44% of people calling themselves assholes.

http://www.artsjournal.com/slippeddisc/ ... nding.html

In an advance leak of an interview with Fortune magazine, the Republican candidate says he will eliminate funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, ending half a century of modest state support.

"[F]irst there are programs I would eliminate. Obamacare being one of them but also various subsidy programs — the Amtrak subsidy, the PBS subsidy, the subsidy for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities. Some of these things, like those endowment efforts and PBS I very much appreciate and like what they do in many cases, but I just think they have to stand on their own rather than receiving money borrowed from other countries, as our government does on their behalf."

Ok honestly, Paul Ryan I think is genuine and I like him as a person. I hate him as a politician, but as a human being I like the guy. But I just find myself hating Mitt Romney so much. I can't be the only one.
And this isn't a Conservative VS Liberal thing, I think that as a person, Mitt Romney is a total jackass. They're talking about raising the costs of medicine all over again, f*cking vouchers, increasing military spending, laying off public workers, and ending funding for neutral nonpartisan news and education organizations.

Ron Paul is on his way to Tampa to stop the ring leader of the murderous ovary cancer-giving woman hating gay bashing knuckle dragging red face whiskey breathe flat-earth-felon Mitt Romney!

AAAAAaahhh!

Phatscotty wrote:Ron Paul is on his way to Tampa to stop the ring leader of the murderous ovary cancer-giving woman hating gay bashing knuckle dragging red face whiskey breathe flat-earth-felon Mitt Romney!

You forgot "Darn tootin'" and "Dang nammit"

Busted! Look at the Obama talking points being torn to shreds by....Anderson Cooper! Looks like all she is selling is the bogus war on women.

"We need to make sure women know that Mitt Romney hates women, and this is not dirty politics at all"

Nice strategy... Who would believe or vote for this crap?

One hundred years after the Constitution became the law of the land, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, described the fall of ancient Athens with a succinct and accurate summary of how and why democracies decline. "A democracy will continue to exist up until the time the voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury," he wrote. "From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
"From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back into bondage."

America is close to the final phase. There may be time to turn the ship of state around, but that time is quickly coming to a close. November of this year may be that time. Consider your vote carefully.