Obama vs Romney: Let's hear some rational views.
Submitted by OctoBox on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 18:51Who will you vote for (honestly)?
There's what Obama (has) done vs. what Romney might do.
Who do you vote for SOLEY based on the facts and basic forecasting?
Who has been literally worse for America and who is speculatively worse for America?
I'm Non-voterian and anti-lobbyinese -- so, you know my thoughts.
Oh you don't?
Voting is an abdication of consumer-rule as it attempts (the downstream voting patterns of politicians) either directly or indirectly through gov't spending to alter market decisions.
Lobbying is bribery (the purchase of future votes of an elected or hopefully elected official who promises to favor your camp).
»
- Login to post comments
Best hope for America is that Romney simply keels over.
Hey it happens.
Heart attacks, strokes, freak accidents and aneurysms are a fact of life.
Romney EQUALS Obama - How hard is that to understand?
Anybody here who voted for either is a sell out.
For me
Obama has no Ron paul Republicans on his central committees or in any offices.
Romney has Ron paul Republicans seated and running for office.
Obama does not have to deal with Ron paul Republicans
Romney if elected would have to answer to Ron Paul Republicans.
In addition
GJ. like Obama will not have to answer to Ron Paul Republicans and has sparse central committees and not enough elected in offices to actually make any changes.
Conclusion: IF you care about the Ron paul Republicans, and Romney is the GOP nominee, don't think of Romney, think of the Ron Paul Republicans who need an opportunity to get OUR Liberty idssues and candidates vetted.
NO one on my central committee wants Romney, so if Romney wins, we are all equal. Obama wins and Ron paul Republicans will become the targets.
Why would you want to make Ron Paul Republicans targets of the estbalishment?
STAND WITH RAND 2016
While I would never vote for
either of the major party socialists, there might actually be an advantage to Romney winning. The fact is, Romney doesn't have a principled bone in his body and would literally do anything to maintain popularity. Given that and the possibility of a major economic downturn, perhaps liberty would be perceived as popular under those circumstances, at least among the common people. Obama would go down with the ship, even though he directed it to the rocks. After Romney directs it to the rocks, he may be more flexible in putting his finger to the wind and try to actually do some right things to fix it.
It is unfortunate that our politicians do not vote for liberty out of principle. But if we can scare them into doing so out of fear, that at least isn't as bad as some of them sticking to communism/fascism out of principle.
You know what? If Ron Paul's
You know what? If Ron Paul's not on the ballot, who gives a f uck? Right now I'm gettin' my money right, bi-atch.
No way you could vote for either
Of course.
Lord Acton, Lord Chief Justice of England, 1875 - "The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the People v. The Banks."
Ron Paul, barring an ineligibility trick or something.
Morality, respect, ethics, and dignity come into play here. This is not quasi-politics.
If I vote for some godless clown because of “some unknown positive possibility somewhere down the road” (the essence of foolishness to begin with), what does that say about me? What kind of example am I setting? Will God honor somehow that intentional nonachievement?
If Ron Paul ends up unavailable, I most likely will not vote this time around. Gary Johnson is far too wishy washy for my taste. (Andrew Napolitano is a good write-in possibility. …We have to be ready for anything.)
On Facebook:
♦ Personal Profile ♦ Political Group ♦ Political Page ♦
I'M VOTING FOR RON PAUL.
I'M VOTING FOR RON PAUL. CAPSLOCK ON PURPOSE.
Neither Romney or Obama are Constitutionally eligible to run for their party nominations. Neither are Constitutionally eligible to run for the office of President, and so are not qualified to hold that office.
As it hasn't gotten publicity since 1968 - Romney's father, a Mexican national ran for US President in 68. He was generally ignored, and it was considered something of a joke because everyone knew he was a Mexican who was too arrogant to go through the process of becoming a citizen. His mother was also a Mexican national.
Romney is a Mexican national.
Obama is a Kenyan, and a British subject.
Both brought to you by Goldman Sachs and Scytl.
RON PAUL 2012 * Restore America * Bring The Troops Home
http://www.texasuncensored.blogspot.com
So far it is up to the GOP...
ideally, of course, I'll vote FOR The Good Doctor. If Republican's instead insist on re-electing the Bu'ushist Regime, then I'll vote FOR The Iron Man.
I will not vote for cruelty or larceny or brutality, nor will I intentionally "waste" my vote by voting AGAINST one psychopath over another. There will be no blood on my hands based on my vote for a mass-murdering fascist war criminal (like Bario Bush) nor a mass-murdering war ciminal wannabe and practicing fascist (like Mitsy Bush).
Looking at the math, one has a better chance of influencing the outcome of an election by voting "third party" than by voting Demoblican.
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr
Romney is a scum dirtbag filthy pig, and Obama is a
communist. Given the two I pick Romney.
SequoiaTrees4RonPaul
Obama -- war, massive
Obama -- war, massive deficits, and a dead Bill of Rights.
Romney -- war, massive deficits, and a dead Bill of Rights.
Believe me, I'd love to see Ron Paul pull a Hail Mary and walk away with the nomination. But most likely that's not going to happen. If Paul is not on the ballot I will vote for Gary Johnson.
Let's see...
...If it were truly up to the people and our vote really counted, Paul would be in office. Since the machines are fixed to choose who the establishment wants...who will we get? Thing 1 or Thing 2?
Will they be
thumb wrestling?
Now that I have a Central Committee seat as RP asked ALL of us
I see the election from a different perspective.
Do I want to make the Ron Paul Central Committee memebrs life Hell and hope they will quit and give the Democrats more power in my county and state?
I'd vote for Obama if I wanted to push them out.
Do I want to give the Ron Paul Republicans who are seated a chance to vet issues and candidates and continuing working to Restore Constitutional Government?
If Ron Paul wins the nomination, I'll vote for him GLADLY. If not, I'll vote for Romney, not that I agree with him, but to support the hundreds of seated Ron Paul Republicans on committees.
Third and indy or no-vote is not an option for me.
STAND WITH RAND 2016
Screw them both
Vote 3rd-Party.
Romney & Obama are both pro-War, pro-NAFTA, pro-Police-State, pro-Bankster, Neocons and serial liars. They're indenticle is all the significant policies, and and funded by the same corrupt interests. Don't believe a single word any of them say.
Vote 3rd-Party.
Gary Johnson (Libertarian)
Dr. Jill Stein (Green)
At least you can sleep at night, and know that you didn't help to start the next atrocity.
There are two green parties
Green Party USA and Green Party International. Rockefeller started the Green Party in the last 60s to promotre nuclear energy, both are controlled by the Democratic party, which is why Ralph Nader was called a "spoiler".
The LB Party was started in 72, to give those who opposed the war on drugs a vote, and they haven't gotten very far since then, nor will they, as they are controlled by the GOP.
What's better than both these nowhere parties is the get a seat on your Republican Central Comiittee (my county has 14 open seats) and actually get some power, out number the Neocons, and do what Ron paul suggested.
STAND WITH RAND 2016
-?-
The Green Party has always opposed Nuclear Energy. And the Democratic Party Establishment doesn't even like this Party because they expose just how right-wing, pro-War. and Corporatist the Democratic Party really is.
And Ron Paul himself ran on the Libertarian Party in 1988.
The point is, I think we've seen why the GOP can't be changed in 2012. They will just simply change the rules (or break the rules), and even use violence to keep out the Ron Paul supporters, or at least deny them recognition or true "power".
And when we see things like Rand Paul endorsing Mitt Romney, it makes me just barf.
__
At least Gary Johnson (unlike Ron Paul) is still trying, and at least he will not ever endorse Mitt Romney.
It is sad to see the so-called Liberty movement people not rally around a man of true Integrity like Gary Johnson.
Unlike Ron Paul:
Gary Johnson didn't just quit...once he started to win States.
Gary Johnson didn't refuse to attack Mitt Romney.
Gary Johnson didn't just quit at the height of his popularity.
Gary Johnson didn't endorse Mitt Romney
and Gary Johnson is trying to just sell books.
Gary Johnson is out there still really trying to run for President.
He's not a quitter.
We should help him, or this "movement" is just nothing but a mere personality-cult, and not about supporting honest politicians.
Nuclear Power was once considered Green
When the Green Party was formed, the idea behind Nuclear Power was it was clean power. It didn't always oppose Nuclear Energy, it wasn't until 3 mile Island that it did an about face.
As a four time Ralph Nader voter, I refused to buy the "Spoiler" tee shirt Nader's campaign took on in 04. "Spoiler" is what the Democratic Party refered to Nader, saying he stole votes.
If you were sitting on your county central committee or running for an office as a Ron Paul Republican, and you faced Neocons, who really resented you, saw you as an infiltraitor, and looked for an opportunity to take you down, the bottom line for them right now is Obama. Obama wins, and every liberty candidate and central committee memeber is going to become a target.
Romney wins, and those Liberty candidaites will live to see another election.
Obama wins, they won't.
GJ is not going to win, but assures Obama will.
I'm very concerned about the future of the Liberty Movement, it's candidates and Central Committee members who are already facing the Neocons are going to be the biggest losers if Obama wins, just look at what they have done to delegates.
STAND WITH RAND 2016
Nonsense
If Mitt Romney wins, the whole Tea-Party thing will just split-up into pieces, and fracture.
What helped to create and build the Liberty movement and the Tea-Party, and make the Election of Rand Paul to the U.S. Senate possible -- was the fact that Obama was the President, and that for many he represented big, high-spending government.
That was the whole driving force here.
Voting for and supporting Gary Johnson will also not necessarily elect Obama anyway. Romney's support comes from a different demographic: The Neocon, pro-War, pro-Bush/Cheney, socially-repressive Republicans. And Far too many Macro-events (War with Iran, Syria, Financial Collapses, Unemployment, etc) will determine whether or not Obama gets elected.
But the important thing is that if you want the Constitutional/Liberty movement to grow then you do have to vote for all the candidates who align with that philosophy.
You cannot try to throw the race to Mitt Romney, and then possibly claim that you're advancing the Liberty movement. That would be like throwing the race to Dick Cheney, and then claiming that you're a peace advocate. This is nonsense.
You have to vote for you're principles. The whole problem with America is that for way, way too long, the people failed to stand-up and actually vote for the candidates that really represented their interests best (3rd-Parties).
Gary Johnson is anti-War, anti-Police-State, anti-Drug-Criminalization, anti-Corporatist, and simply represents our philosophy and our interests best.
You grow the Liberty movement by making his voice, and voices like him much louder.
I don't agree
How many Tea Party meetings have you attended? Do you know your Tea Party? Do you know who is in your Tea Party? Do you know their local and state issues?
Where do you get your information about the Tea Party? MSM or the Tea Party?
To my experience, the Tea Party began in 07 before Nov 5TH, with the Ron Paul rEVOLUtion. In my area, it was The Sons of Liberty and Red Man society, and we went to the river and threw in crates with slogans like, "King George". Obama was not president and many people thought Hilary was going to be the Democratic Party select. The Tea Party was co-opted by Sean Hannity/MSM and became something that Rand's Senate race is the only thing keeping us somewhat aligned. A few weeks ago, my Tea Party sent me a call to action to protest in San Francisco. The issue they based the protest was support of a Ron Paul legislation, and they didn't even name Ron Paul, so I did. I partitipcate to make sure they keep Ron Paul on the map, though many don't want anything to do with Ron becasue they are former WWII and upper Nam vets, who say they don't like his foreign policy. I keep educating them about that too. I see my participation as an opportunity to educate. Maybe they see me as a gadfly, but still, it's a voice for Liberty.
Did you go to your GOP or LP Central Committee meetings? Do you know who they are? After 16 years as a Libertarian, the only issue we gor somewhere was Proposition 215, which put many people I know in prison with 10 year mandetory minimums, and the whole court issue was tragic. I attended trials in Los Angeles, Orange County, Ventura County, San Diego County, Riverside County and San Bernadino County. So while we won Prop 215 with 56% of the vote, it has actually hurt more people than helped, and is now being co-opted by Liberals wanting to employ it for massive taxes under the guise of being legalized. We wanted it decriminalized.
I regigistered Decline to State Party in 93 under the influence of Ralph Nader, and found ourselves as victims of dirty tricks with law suits to bankrupt our campaigns in 22 states. We didn't even get to debate. I refused to join the GOP in 07. I knew my 33 years of Libertarian and Indy experience could help Ron Paul in 08. I wound up giving Ralph Nader a fourth vote.
A little over a year ago, I joined the GOP. I felt just sick about it. I was afriad to go to a Central Committee meeting, but once I went, there were two people. There should have seen 21. I saw the light in what Ron Paul was saying... The GOP had been gutted and was a shell. We could take it, and all that power by showing up and takeing seats. But no one showed up. I got a seat, became a delegate, and today I have more political power in one year than I did in my former 33 years all put together. Ron Paul was RIGHT ON. My only regret is not joining the GOP in 07.
There is wonderful opportunity, but TPTB and MSM are on to us, and now I see that people are being drawn back to Indy and third parties, that have no power.
It is a shame.
My vote for president, like Rand, is about keeping what power we have. I fear that the GOP will fold because of those Liberty candidates and committee members like myself, who they see as infiltraitors. Those Liberty candidates are GOP, and they need a GOP president to build from the bottom up. Obama wins, and we will be purged, and we can vote our principles, but have no power to actualy do anything about them.
GJ has been registered a Republican, his most popular issue is marijuana, and anti-war, very simular to Nader's. Nothing wrong with that, it's just, it's not going to help those people who followed Ron Paul keep their seats or win any elections, because they will be taken down from the inside by lack of support.
Mark my words.
GJ is a red herring, and that to me is where your principles are. You didn't follow Ron Paul into the GOP, get a seat on a Central Committee because your principles stop you fram getting "dirty", not even to fight. You play it safe, and you think that people will respect you for voting for GJ. They won't. The nieve might. But those who did the work, are in this fight, put ourselves on the line, wish you were with us. You are not.
A vote for GJ is a vote for Obama. But you would have to go to a GOP central Committee meeting, a Tea Party to actually see what I'm talking about, and you won't.
You are working to make the Liberty movement weaker in the name of "principle". You can fool yourself, and others who refuse to get "dirty", MSM lies, and you bought it hook, line and Liberty movement sinker.
STAND WITH RAND 2016
If it's Obama vs Romney and
If it's Obama vs Romney and you don't have a write in option (like Texas) then don't vote.
Not voting is a legitimate option. At least your hands won't have any blood on them when all is said and done.
What if we knew body count?
How many here if given a perfectly accurate forecast of the difference in body count between the two candidates be swayed to vote for one of them?
Let's say hypothetically candidate Obama would produce 50,000 fewer dead Arabs and 500 fewer American military deaths. This wouldn't be much of a fact for the history books, but dead serious to the humans who didn't die.
Something like this might persuade me. But between the electoral college, the number of people voting, I presume the vote of protest would still make me feel better.
Currently consuming: Free Domain Radio; Virtue of Selfishness; Human action;
I will write in Ron Paul,
or else I won't cast a vote for President.
After seeing what the RNC did to us this year, there is no way that i could pull any levers for them.
While I can't stand Obama, I'd rather suffer thru 4 more years of him, than 8 years of Romney. If we could get another chance to field a freedom candidate in 2016, I'd prefer that.
Both choices are puke-worthy, and it's only a strategic issue to get another shot at 2016.
I will NOT vote for Gary Johnson.
I will vote for ONLY the Republicans who are known to be freedom candidates which we know about here on the DP, or who Ron Paul endorses. I won't vote for ANY other Republican.
I will ONLY support those people who are working their way into the GOP for our purposes.
As for both my GOP senators, I will vote against them because they are both gutter trash.
I will not vote for any Democrats, unless there is a rare circumstance that a known freedom candidate is on the Dem ticket.
Not likely.
Non-voterian and
Non-voterian and anti-lobbynese? I'd summarize that as utopian. Dream on. Lobbying is gonna happen regardless and if you don't let people vote once in a while they'll burn your palaces down until you let them. Even dictators get that. And not everything is a market.
Freedom Broadcasting Network - independent grassroots network
www.fbn.tv
What's (not) a market -- give me an example -- what's
never for sale?
"Utopian" -- the assumption is that by simply not voting you can effect change?
That's not what I said nor is it what the OP says.
You won an argument wherein you argued both sides -- congratulations.
I'm saying this:
What is a senior politicians "power" or "leverage?"
1) Warchest
2) Having and Assigning Special Committee Seats
3) Consumers-who-Vote
----Abdication of self-rule via consumer-sovereignty (Mises)
4) Consumers-who-Lobby (warchest builders)
----In the hope that he in turns votes or writes bills that will favor their collective
5) Corporations-who-Vote
6) Corporations-who-Lobby
7) Control (owing to warchest and special committe seats) over the voting trends of "Junior" Politicians. Essentially control over their relection
What is a bankers power or leverage
---It's nearly the sames as a corporations power or levereage
1) Their Revenue
----Consumers-who-Purchase
----Consumers-who-Invest
----Gov't Intervention
2) Ability to print money with little to no checks and balances
----Given this authority by politicians (who get most of their power from consumers-who-vote and lobby. Print money "at interest"
3) Ability to adjust (free-bird) credit rates and thus control the boom-bust cycle -- creating value in industries or corporations that may not be there in a free-economy.
Corporate Revenue Stream:
1) Consumers-who-Purchase
2) Consumers-who-Invest
3) Consumers-who-Vote
---Voting Leads Gov't Intervention
---->Bailouts
---->Subsidies
---->Lending
---->Guarantee Insurance
---->Regulatory Advantages
---->Tax Loopholes
---->Barriers to Competition
You want to controll all that via "voting and lobbying" -- the system itself is designed to grow -- not shrink.
Billions and Billions are spent on the election cycle which wind up controling (in non-free-market manner) trillions and trillions worth of non-market leverage.
Either Mises Consumer-Sovereignty is right or it is Wrong
---The wrong vote is to continue ad infinitum on the path that has never worked once in all human history (that corporatist tools or social tools lead to smaller gov't).
According to Ron Paul all gov'ts grow then burst -- then new gov'ts form and grow and burst again (over and over) as history tells.
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
What's never for
What's never for sale?
Utopia, for one.
Real Love.
Talent.
Liberation.
All I said was that people with the means to do it are always going to try and gain influence, if not grab power. That's the whole logic behind having a constitution.
Lobbying happens: let me ask it differently. What are you going to do about it? Outlaw it? And then? How are you going to enforce it? Have a corrupt police police corrupt politicians? Instead of lobbying and corruption, you'll just have more corruption. It's you that believes everything is for sale, so same goes for buying people and buying influence.
Voting happens: if not by ballot, then by force. The people that can't buy influence through lobbying or corruption are still gonna want theirs. And if they don't get it eventually they'll riot until they get it. Trying running a market during a riot. No beautiful principle there either, just what happens.
Freedom Broadcasting Network - independent grassroots network
www.fbn.tv
You didn't make a good argument here
To say that evil exists and therefore let's use the tools created by the "evil-they" to overthrow the "evil-they" is just stupid.
Nothing wrong with being stupid, but once a strong argument to the contrary is pointed out then one should at least "consider" it.
Will you admit that Voting and Lobbying "grows" the size of gov't?
That voting and lobbying is a tool created by the Upper 8%, right?
That Ron Paul has indeed said that Trade and not War limited or eliminated Communism in Vietnam, can you admit he said that?
Is voting and lobbying a free-market tool or is it a tool that only makes "sense" in a mixed (non-reciprocitous) economy?
Answer those and we can begin a healthy debate.
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
No you read it wrong.
No you read it wrong. Lobbying and voting are meant to keep the system in place, to prevent it from being overthrown. They're like pressure-vents if you will. If you don't allow some kind of lobbying, companies will organise a coup and if you don't allow some kind (illusion) of voting the poor will riot in the streets.
So to your questions:
- of course it does. But that's the nature of any system to expand, consolidate and monopolize. From ants to families, to villages, to corporations to governments, that's what we do.
- of course, by them and for them. A two party system the US has makes that especially clear.
- i don't know if he said that but I would agree for a large part. But communism isn't eliminated in Vietnam. They're like China in that regard. But I don't see what the Socialist Republic of Vietnam's international trade balance has to do with anything we're talking about?
- look I know what you're getting at. You think you can replace government with a truly free market and I just don't quite believe that. You need a free market and a small, constitutionally limited government to preserve freedom, imo. In a free market big players will always try to expand, consolidate and monopolize. Will you admit that? The push for A LOT of overregulation, tarrifs, taxes, subsidies comes from business interests. They want consumer safety guidelines, to block out smaller and international competitors and startups. Will you admit that? How is that not aimed purely at growth and any different from what a government tries to do?
A free market doesn't conserve freedom. It consolidates freedom into freedom of choice. To choose between MacDonalds or Burger King, Christian or Atheist, Obama or Romney. Freedom of choice IS NOT LIBERTY and government not a consumer product.
Freedom Broadcasting Network - independent grassroots network
www.fbn.tv
Ummmmm.....did I read it wrong?
You said Lobbying Happens and Voting Happens (ballot or by force).
I'm saying that in a free-society there is no ballot-box voting there's POS Voting (point of sale) or the "daily-dollar-vote" -- if that is "force" then sure.
Lobbying is bribery of the political-class -- specifically.
It does not exist in a free-society because in a free-society (even one with a limited gov't purpose) there are NO CONTROLS over any market-good -- therefore there's no political ability to circumvent consumer-sovereignty -- thus no logical need for lobbying.
If you want to argue that Lobbyist would be Salesmen or Ad-men in a free-society -- because that is their comparable talent by occupation. Then I'd say you are correct.
A lobbyist job is to buy future voting trends and to influence who stays in office or who gets booted out (owing the the former voting-performance owing to lobbyist dictates).
People could "lobby" corporate leaders in a free-society, but to what avail -- in a free-society "owners" (the wealthiest ones) hold only short positions in businesses; since there are no guarantees to profitability and no boom-bust power consoldited in Congress or with Bankers then they do not hold "long positions"
The long-positions in a free-society are held by the "savers" (according to most free-market thinkers -- Mises included).
The poor and middleclass not having the capital to take profit from short positions hold (save) their assets not in stocks or bonds (per se) but in banks as liquid cash. The banks then lend to wealthy "prospectors" (men who are adept at finding the next best entrepreneurial innovation) -- this increases the value of the cash assets and is thus the safest place for poor and middle income people to store savings.
A free-society is one of near perfect (in the long-run) reciprocity.
A mixed economy (such as ours) pits poor-middle-wealthy classes against one another and forced poor-middle to "borrow" or go indebt.
In a free-society with no insurance guarantees for banks from gov't they do not lend to poor or middle income folks -- only to wealth innovation-finders with a proven track record.
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
don't vote. sit back. LAUGH
Walter Block said he "prefers" obama because Obama is AT LEAST less likely to nuke someone.
Walter Block also is hoping RP runs for president again since he will be "a young 79" in 2016
I also prefer Obama because of the same reasons, also it opens up the primaries in both parties, instead of a dem primary vs. Mittens. That way if someone we love like RP or the Judge run for president, they have a legit chance, instead of trying to challenge Mittens Dictator in Chief.
I say laugh at politicians. Laugh at the tsa. Laugh at cops. LAUGH. (thanks lew rockwell)
R/nh
my diy adventure blog: dickdoesit.blogpsot.com