13 votes

We are Living Under the Tyranny of a 2 Party Duopoly!

After I watched the video posted earlier on DP regarding how manipulated and staged the national debates were I was inspired to do some searching and found my reason for starting this petition on Change.org... Rasmussen Reports' intentional excluding 3rd party candidates from their polling... MORE media blackout.

Being an avid Ron Paul supporter, knowing that he completely supports open debate and all candidates having a voice... that is now my goal... to help promote the nation realizing that they have more than two candidates to choose from.

Here is a petition I started last night and I've been editing it a bunch, but I'm still looking for your help in how to increase its impact and refine its message.

http://www.change.org/petitions/rasmussenreports-com-include...

We are living under the tyranny of a 2 party duopoly!
When did "Live free or Die" turn to "Live free or accept what you're given"?
My possible vote for a 3rd more capable and deserving candidate is more important than choosing the lesser of two evils who's differences are only minor compared to the vast majority of their seriously troubling similarities.

NOTE: Regardless of who the 3rd party candidates are... they deserve to be a part of the debates. Your vendetta against Gary Johnson is the polar opposite of what Ron Paul's stance on the inclusion of real debate and 3rd party candidates getting their chance to be heard.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

No worries. My dad is much

No worries. My dad is much worse and I have speech dyslexia and horribly phonetic spelling mistakes.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

You know you're a loser when

You know you're a loser when you spam down ratings... even on comments where there's a mutual understanding through experience between those involved.

You downrated a comment where I confirm that I and possibly my father also have a form of the same condition the other person does.

Someone needs to get a life and take a break from petty forum bickering/rating wars like they even mean anything.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Actually, you know you are a

Actually, you know you are a loser when you reply to your own comment.

Not really. It was an

Not really. It was an observation for the sake of anyone else not keen enough to pick up on it themselves... especially if they were guilty of the act. It was a PSA. An opportunity for people to correct themselves.

I explained why rating spamming made someone a "loser". You just said "nuh uh, you're a loser for commenting on your own comment" based on an assumption you were using that you didn't even specify.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Most people commenting on

Most people commenting on their own comments do iit for a bump... So their thread goes back to the top. Judging by the amount of comments you have made on this thread, it's likely that is what you're doing.

Nonsense

a duopoly would be if the CFR only had puppet candidates in two of the party's. Fact is with GJ in the LP spot they have 3

Your candidate nicknames...

If, according to you, there is a "obamney" or "rombama"... what does that make Gary Johnson?

It's a simple question... is he a better candidate than the status-quo?

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

he is

the status quo

A simple claim without

A simple claim without supporting let alone conclusive evidence is a waste of your and my time. You've made no valid point whatsoever.

The fact that you can't give that to me without me easily pulling it apart shows that you yourself are acting off of a baseless and careless claim.

Unless you can that is.

I challenge you to prove Gary Johnson is part of the status quo.

Otherwise... you opening your mouth was simply to hear yourself and/or for attention.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

.

GJ: Guantanamo Johnson.

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

In my opinion, he is... But

In my opinion, he is... But not "better" enough. I'm voting Ron Paul so I can look my family and friends in the eye for the rest of my life.

Saying you're voting for a

Saying you're voting for a person that isn't even a candidate as an independent doesn't show you're a man of your word or principles. It shows you're trying to protest the betrayed feeling you have that things didn't go your way... like a captain going down with his ship. It's a way to simulate "being noble" when in reality a write-in doesn't even get counted.

You now have a choice between 3-4 candidates. You have Obamney and then two others. One of those two others might be more than just "better"... they might not be an "evil" to choose between... and you're throwing your vote away.

There's a difference between voting for someone with little chance to win and voting for someone that's not even running.

Paul himself is all for debate and more candidates being heard on an equal stage... yet you're doing the opposite of this. You're furthering the sabotage that 3rd party candidates already endure.

Watch the linked video below... you end up betraying him by writing him in. You're doing it more for your hurt ego and the criticisms you've had to endure from family and friends for supporting Paul, than your or anyone else's actual well-being.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aquLH7yAdWo

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

This is the same tired old

This is the same tired old logic that compels the people to believe they have to choose among the candidate that Goldman Sachs, CFR, IMF, etc, tells them to. It's obvious that you've only been on here for a day. Maybe you should just read for a while before posting more.

This is what you just did in

This is what you just did in your comment
1. Claimed something without backing it up with logic or evidence... "This is the same old tired logic and I'm not going to show how it is"
2. Assumed I have only been here one day because I had just only now signed up, when what's "obvious to you" isn't even true.

Please come back when you're done using fallacies.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

This is what you just did: 1)

This is what you just did:

1) You assume you get to define what is logic and what isn't. This is only true for yourself.
2) you actually came on the Daily Paul and insinuated that we had to vote for one of the main candidates, not to include Ron Paul, or our vote wouldn't count.

Get a life. Pimp GJ elsewhere, Mr. 1 day DPer.

I would respect you much more

I would respect you much more if you had only been here a few days and decided to sign up. To claim you have been here for a while and FINALLY just decided to sign up and contribute is extremely lame. Also, it doesnt make much sense considering you've commented quite a lo in your one day. Is this a binge?

Always vote for principle,

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” - John Quincy Adams

You're misconstruing the

You're misconstruing the meaning. A write-in that you know will not be counted is not a "vote".

The fact that it's counted is what makes it a vote.

It's like saying "Hey... do you want lima beans or carrots?" "I WANT PIZZA!" You may love pizza... but that's not what you're voting on... you're voting on what is available as an end result.

The point of the quote is that you should vote for an ELIGIBLE candidate even if they have almost no chance of winning.

This quote alone doesn't invalidate the reasoning I pointed out that you're choosing to do a write-in for. The quote was enough of a justification for you to believe you were being noble with a write-in... but I've explained with valid logic and evidence showing otherwise.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

It is a vote AND it's also a

It is a vote AND it's also a non-vote for the person you would have us vote for because they have been chosen by your masters. You claim logic, yet you argue as if the vote of an individual belongs to the masses and should be compromised.

"Votenoun /vōt/ votes,

"Vote
noun /vōt/ 
votes, plural

1. A formal indication of a choice between two or more candidates or courses of action, expressed typically through a ballot or a show of hands or by voice"

Ron Paul is not a candidate... not a "choice".

As in my example, your choice to say you want pizza instead of the two available vegatables isn't a choice, a "vote", between your options (candidates).

You're misconstruing the implied definition of the quote you supplied to fit your own self serving, wasteful, and careless agenda as a false justification.

Your write-in is as meaningful as you writing Ron-Paul's name on a piece of paper and burning it or letting it float in the wind. Someone looking at the piece of paper for a couple of seconds at most before they throw it away is not as meaningful as a vote for a better actual candidate that will get counted, seen by the world, even if they don't have a real chance of winning. THAT is what the quote you gave was referring to.

It would be different if there were literally only two choices. I had originally planned to write him in as well... UNTIL I remembered there were other better candidates available to choose from and came to this conclusion about my write-in.

Remember how you laughed when you saw the 1 or 2 votes for candidates that had dropped out months prior in the primaries?

That's what your write-in amounts to... except in this case... it won't even be noted.

Your uncounted write-in is only to comfort your ego... nothing more.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Ron Paul is not a candidate?

Ron Paul is not a candidate? Really? You're an idiot. The only person who is a bigger idiot than you is me, for wasting my time arguing with a stupid college kid ho thinks he knows something.

Doesn't matter because Gary

Doesn't matter because Gary can't win... No way... Now will voting for him do the party some good is another story...

Check the soundbite of jesse

Check the soundbite of jesse ventura in the recently posted video "Scared of Debate?".

http://youtu.be/1NXhoP5bQ2M?t=17m56s

He had 10% of the vote and got into the debates. The debates catapulted him into first place.

Your thinking is the same as those that said "I like Paul, but he can't win" before the 2012 debates even started and went with 3-4 different candidates to support before they were left with no choice at all.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

The problem is Gary.... He

The problem is Gary.... He can't win.... Way to weak of a candidate...

That's the same exact

That's the same exact mentality people had about Ron Paul... and we put the responsibility on them with "If everyone that said they like Ron Paul but he couldn't win, voted for him, he could win".

To use your logic is hypocritical.

The differences between Romney and Obama pale in comparison to their similarities so much that we have the hundred different pro-Ron Paul memes all over the net about "Obomney".

The very small number of differences mean nothing compared to sending the message that things are changing... even if that means voting for someone who isn't going to win. That message (that will be reported on) that the 3rd party vote is increasing dramatically will start to let people know "You have more of a choice than you thought you did"... "The 46% of you that feel like you are choosing between two evils and 60-80% of you that are willing to consider a 3rd party don't have to slide back to the lesser of the two evils anymore".

I don't care about party loyalty. Loyalty isn't greater than integrity. Integrity IS loyalty.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

No you miss the point... Gary

No you miss the point... Gary is weak... He has some good ideas and some really bad ideas... Even if he made the debates he wouldn't make it... He is the wrong person.... If they didn't cheat and hide Ron Paul every American with half a brain would be on board... If you put Gary on prime time every night he would talk his way out of an election...

Where is the connection

Where is the connection between the CFR and Gary Johnson?

What is the conclusive evidence of this kind of corruption, such as what we have with both Romney and Obama, both parties, and the election process fine-tuned to be the smooth ship it is that offers at least 40% of the power in government to both parties at all times?

Discrediting Gary Johnson as one of 3 evils on a whim can be more than your loss... it can be all of ours.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

you need look no further

than his closest political adviser and manager of his campaigns, Doug Turner who was moved up into CFR leadership shortly after maneuvering his puppet GJ into the LP slot to block that possible option for Ron Paul. Or you could look at his new campaign strategist who GJ does not have the funds to hire. NeoCon sleezeball Roger Stone. GJ is not close to being a libertarian, and you guys running around posting his latest etch a sketch change of stances to make him seem like one are either seriously deluding yourselves or perhaps taking paychecks from the Koch brothers.

1. Your theory about blocking

1. Your theory about blocking RP from the LP slot being the intention is a theory/allegation. Nothing more. You are taking an assumption and running with it as though it's fact.

2. You're right. It's 100% wrong for people to accept better paying positions and promoted titles to further their career.

3. A lot of paulites consider Jesse Benton a sleezeball too. Your point is moot.

4. How is he not libertarian enough? I can and will counter all arguments to that claim.

PS. I could probably say the same thing about whatever other conspiracy theories you have regarding the "deluding yourself" bit.

They're called theories for a reason. See #1 for an example.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

your empty suit GJ

could not even identify the nonaggression principle in his first interview after becoming LP candidate, he could not name one tenet of libertarianism, he has flopped on every single issue except his legalize MJ and tax the shit out of it plan. (said issue is of course what neocons believe is the sum of libertarianism.) And shall we talk of his balanced budget which was created by what amounts to a Federal bailout of his state?