-44 votes

Do You Really Want to Give This Guy a Second Term?

Comment viewing options

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

What I don't get is how anybody

who watches that clip, researches the facts on B.O. and the vpares Obama's record and the platform he's running on to Romney could come to the same conclusion that Romney would be just as bad as Obama. Unless of course you're caught up in a libertarian cult in which it would be a sin to admit that a Republican is preferable to a Democratic Socialist.

What I don't get is how anybody thinks another R will save us

from another D. How long does someone need to be around to realize these people are all completely full of crap. They will say whatever it takes to get elected and then turn around and do the bankers' bidding. Through many many years of D's and R's the country has steadily marched toward socialism and corporate fascism and will continue to as long as good people believe the crap the party spews. Obama is another in a long line of rascals to be thrown out while Romney shuts up the R's long enough to drive us a little farther toward 100% government control of every facet of life.

Ron Paul voted for Eisenhower.

If Eisenhower were on the GOP ballot instead of Romney, most of the people that claim they supported Ron Paul but, aren't voting for Romney wouldn't vote for Eisenhower either. Why? Because like you said, another R will not save us. Eisenhower did next to nothing to roll back the New Deal. But, Conservative Republicans like Ron Paul and most likely the rest of his family vote for him because they knew that he at least wouldn't make any FURTHER incisions into the free market and at least wouldn't declare war on the Constitution like the majority of the Democratic Party.

I don't expect Romney to "save us," but, I do expect him to roll back government to where it was economically in 2008 and keep it there until we can grow our numbers enough to get a real classic liberal elected president.

They won't

How long does someone need to be around to understand, that if we want change, we need to become that change. Ron Paul picked the GOP as the arena for the fight. You either get in the fight with Ron Paul, or DO WHAT YOU WANT.

We have a job to do in the GOP despite Romney. It's not about Romney. That's what I don't get? How do you figure it's about Romney? We all see Romney for what he is.. so? It's about taking a majior party.. the old tired neocons are leaving. The tea partiers, earthquakers, constitutionalists (Chuck Baldwin returned to the GOP) RP CANs are coming in, adn we're all equals, none of us wanted Romney. We all agree America has lost it's way and we need to restore the Republic.. so we have plenty pof work to do despite Romney. All this focus on the presidential race is BS. We have many liberty candidates that no one is helping.. what's up with that? This is why I'm not a grassroots fan... this is why I say, what good is grassroots? Who are the grassroots helping? Maybe John Dennis.. Maybe.

Presidents are selected. Don't we get that? WTF?????

Romney is going to win with 22% of the electoral vote. That's all it's going to take. Obama knows Romney is going to win. So our fight in the GOP is for control.

The problem is, there is only one big party

We will never control the GOP because it was bought and paid for long ago by the folks who really control things. They will simply replace all of us in time if we oppose things "the party" sends down the line for us to support. They won't step back and rethink anything, they'll figure out new ways to consolidate their power and silence us completely. I think giving them any aid is like walking into a black hole.

Ok, there is one big party and

that one big party has two legs. and we have grabbed one of the legs and are not going to let go.

We will control the GOP. We are replacing them. They are getting old and tired and we are taking their seats.. there is not young Neocons... we are the future.

I think you are sorely missed and I understand that you are busy raising a beautiful family.. but still..

We are not aiding them, we are remaining and fighting despite them.

Granger

Do what you want. I don't care.

I, however, will NEVER support or vote a nwo commie ie: Obam-NEY.

If people stay in the Republican party and write-in Ron Paul or vote 3rd party, THAT will send the message that we ain't taking sh|t anymore and won't settle for who they force down our throats. If the Republican party is ever to regain respect and improve, it will be by The People who are the millions of Republicans in this nation - NOT the duopoly elitists who currently control it.

I am writing in Ron Paul for specific reasons, but this is an outstanding article:

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin488.htm

btw: romney and obama can both f&ck off.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

"btw: romney and obama can both f&ck off."

It would sure be helpful if people with your kind of attitude would join the Libertarian Party and never have anything to do with the Republican Party ever again. See, it's kind of hard to convince people to change their ideology to ours and vote for our candidates in Republican primaries if they think we're associated with people who f-bombed their nominee.

Yes you do care. Don't lie to me.

You are supporting Obama by default.

Writing in Ron Paul or voting third party defaults FOR Obama.

The GOP is not listening for any message. They have a message for you: GO AWAY! WE LIKE BEING SMALL WITH TONS OF POWER TO DO WHAT WE WANT, WHEN WE WANT, & HOW WE WANT.

The GOP is not seeking respect they are seeking POWER.. GLOBAL POWER for a very few people. It is up to us to STOP them on their race to become gloabl dominators by holding them to the constitution. That is the solution. Anything else is empowering them while defaulting for Obama.

Baldwin rejoined the GOP. GJ is a Republican who accepted the LP nomination. The LP has no rules that say you must be a Libertarian and why they nominate GOP losers for losers.

.

Yes, you are right, I do care.

Granger, I think the breakdown is that you define gop as a small group entity. Granted, there are those at the top who manipulate the masses, and they manage to succeed.

My definition of gop is "the people". We must waken them and show them that they have temporarily lost their way and have been cooerced by a few elitists with a motive. That does not mean that we must prop a prez that the few shoved down our throats.

We are making progress. We are showing other regular folks the corruptness of the few. In time, they will know that we, they, have been shunned and give the word 'conservative' its rightful definition.

:-)

Baldwin, GJ, Paul, etc...it doesn't matter to me what party they belong [register as]. It is nothing more than a calculated move to attempt to win. I vote the person, not the party. That is why it was so easy for me to abandon D and fully support Paul, and with luck, Justin Amash. In time, when conservative citizens find their way again, I will fully support the Republican party. First and foremost, they must defend and protect the Constitution.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

I am not voting the person

I am materializing Ron Paul's message in the party Ron Paul chose.

So you believe Ron Paul is

So you believe Ron Paul is defaulting for Obama? He isn't voting for Romney.

I believe Ron Paul is exceptional

and you're not.

Can't answer the question? Is

Can't answer the question? Is Ron Paul defaulting for Obama since he isn't voting for Romney?

You can't proove who RP is voting for

In his last interveiw he said he had two issues with Romney stopping him short of an endorsement.. ending the fed and ending the wars..

GJ isn't going to end the wars.. and since GJ is a Republican who accepted the LP nominee,, why would RP vote for a Republican posing as a libertarians (and doing a bad job) that believes in pro choice, same sex marriage, not ending the fed or wars, or global occupation, when RP only has two issues against Romney and many against GJ?

I don't need to prove who he

I don't need to prove who he is voting for. I don't care if he votes at all. You are the one that said anybody not voting Romney is voting for Obama by default. You even said that anyone not voting Romney hates this country and the constitution. Well, guess what, Ron Paul isn't voting for Romney, so according to your crazy view of things he is voting Obama by default, and he hates this country and the constitution. I, of course, think your theory is nuts, but if you are going to spout such nonsense you should at least have the courage to stand behind what you said.

You don't know who Ron Paul is voting FOR

That's all you have prooved.

What is wrong with you? I've

What is wrong with you? I've never said I know who he will vote for. I don't even care who he votes for. What we do know is that he isn't voting Romney, and according to your logic he hates this country and the constitution, and is voting for Obama by default. I can understand why you would hesitate to explicitly say that about Ron Paul, but you're the one making crazy statements that imply it whether you mean to or not.

You don't know that he isn't voting Romney

He has far more issues against "wonderful" GJ than Romney, who he didn't take on in the debates. He has said he has two issues with Romney, war and the fed.. he has many more issues against GJ, like abortion and same sax marriage, and he did not apply for any write-in statis, so that will fail.

Meanwhile, not oinly is his son Rand a Senator in the GOP, but he influenced hundreds of people to join the GOP, become national delegates, take committee seats and run for offices.. so, he may vote Romney to support them, like me.

It's not about Romney.. he may vote Romney to empower us. Why not?

Doesn't mean he has to endorese Romney to vote Romney. Non of us wanted Romney. None of us were delegates or took committee seats or run for office because of Romney. It is despite Romney.

He chose the GOP we didn't. We begged, bribed, pleaded, with held support to FORCE him to leave the GOP. He refused. He's still a Republican and looks to me he has NO intention in leaving the party, but working with us in the party through FREEDOM PAC.

Ron paul is with us, and that he has made clear. He is not going to abandon those of us who did what he asked us to do in C4L.. join the GOP, become a credentialed delegate, run for office.. which a committee seat is just the beginning.

Granger, you are delusional.

Granger, you are delusional. Here is what he said about Romney on CNBC the other day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuyVBzy2wuA

"Most of the people who are in the freedom movement would be surprised as I've indicated I would be if we saw a dramatic change in a policy because we have been seeing this for a long time, and we've come to a conclusion that the two parties aren't all that different, and the debate won't be very much involved in true differences of a philosophy, and if you wanted a real debate they probably should've had the Green Party and the Libertarian Party. Now that would've been real excitement! Make these two guys answer to two other people who are thinking about a different way of looking at things. Instead we have two individuals who are really status quo and aren't challenging the status quo, and have not really anything new to offer."

Yep, sure sounds like he only has two differences with Romney. I guess you believe that Romney is now against the Patriot Act, NDAA, wants to eliminate the income tax, department of education, department of energy, homeland security, tsa, guantanamo bay, legal tender laws, the minimum wage, unemployment issurance, foreign aid, the drug war, and keep eliminating everything until the government is only involved in the judicial system, police, and military. Yep, it is just the war and the Fed where Ron Paul differs from Romney.

He also said this specifically when asked what Mitt would have to do to get his support.

"His foreign policy was the policy that disturbed me the most. He was much more aggressive on where the troops should be and what we should do overseas... If he changed it, I would think, wow, maybe I should reconsider. If he came out and said not only do we need to audit the Fed, we need to stop the Fed from monetizing our debt, and stop being the central economic planner for the whole country, if he started saying those things, I would think, well, maybe he had an epiphany, and maybe I should start talking to him some more, but that's not going to happen."

Here is a quote from Ron Paul from the fox interview.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/10/03/how-will-ron-paul-and-h...

The reporter asked who he was going to vote for and Ron Paul said, "I haven't decided yet, or at least I've decided not to announce it."

Then the reporter pressed further asking if he really hadn't decided or if he just wasn't going to tell them. Ron Paul responded, "In a way about voting for somebody, I obviously haven't announced in support for Romney, so that means that's very unlikely, and I don't think anybody thinks I'm going to vote for Obama. So it's back to that frustration level in not seeing a dramatic choice in how the system works."

When asked what Romney could do to gain his support, Ron Paul said, "Bring the troops home, and quit this preaching of a foreign policy where he wants to expand our presence overseas... So foreign policy would have to change, and he would have to give more than token support for a token audit of the Federal Reserve. He would have to say there is something wrong with central banking and economic planning because that is the reason we have so much difficulty in the economy because of the Federal Reserve policy. So the likelihood of hearing that is very very slim. And maybe saying how would you balance the budget! In our campaign we had a precise plan of cutting a trillion dollars in the first year and balancing the budget in three years, but we're in this tremendous crisis and neither one of them is going to say anything about maybe we ought to cut something. There is no proposal to cut actual money. It is always this tinkering around with these massive automatic increases and the American people are starting to wake up and realize it is all fiction."

He made it clear that he is not going to vote for Romney or Obama. Unless you believe Romney is going to have a major philosophical change, and means it, in these last 4 weeks. I don't care what he thinks of Gary Johnson or if he will vote for him. That has no bearing on anything I've been saying. I'm only concerned with whether he will vote Romney, and we have gotten our answer.

It is clear Ron Paul will not vote Romney, just like he didn't vote McCain, Bush II, Dole, or Bush I. So that means if you believe that anybody who doesn't vote for Romney hates this country and the constitution, and is voting for Obama by default, then you are saying those things of Ron Paul because he isn't voting for Romney. Sorry to have to explain that to you, but you're the one who made those asinine statements.

If Herbert Hoover were on the ballot

against Obama, I'd vote for Hoover if for no other reason than Onama's Marxist background.

Your vote won't make a

Your vote won't make a difference. Your single vote won't decide the election. If you are voting for Romney simply because you don't want Obama to win, you are casting a meaningless vote. Whether you vote for Romney, someone else, or don't vote at all, it will have zero impact on the results. I can understand if you are voting for Romney because you agree with his philosophy, although I can't understand why someone would agree with his philosophy, but that doesn't seem to be what you are saying. Do you honestly believe that by voting for Romney you will have any impact on who becomes president?

Okay. Since I don't live in a swing state

I agree completely with your statement. But, Ron Paul got 4% in my state. I knew he was going to come in dead last when I voted for him and that my vote wouldn't make any difference. Should I not have voted for him?

Now, I can see someone thinking, well, why not vote for a third party candidate then if you were willing to throw your vote away for Ron Paul in the primary. Two differences. 1. Everybody Ron Paul ran against in the primary was a lot closer to Ron Paul than the two on the Democratic ticket. 2. Virgil Goode is not much better than Romney in my opinion and Gary Johnson is worse than Romney in my opinion. Why vote for Virgil Goode who is only marginally better than Romney when Goode has no chance of winning and Romney does?

I think it is perfectly fine

I think it is perfectly fine to vote if you agree with the philosophy of the person you are voting for. I think people are delusional, including Ron Paul supporters, if they are voting because they think it will effect the outcome. No single vote has ever decided a presidential election. There are too many people in the country for a single vote to be meaningful. Hell, a single vote won't decide the election in any race for the congress or the senate, either. So I think it is a meaningless exercise to vote at all unless you just feel that the person running represents your views so closely that you want add one more number to his tally. Other than that, voting is a meaningless exercise that gives these tyrants the mandate they desire to rule over us. So unless you think Romney is a great representer of your philosophy, then you are wasting your time voting for him. If you stay home it won't hurt Romney and it won't help Obama, it will just save you the time and hassle of voting for a guy you don't even like.

Sounds to me like you're somewhat of an anarchist.

I'm not an anarchist by any means, I consider myself sort of a cross between a classical liberal and an Old Right Conservative, so, it's obvious we're not going to agree on the whole voting thing. But, Romney is not a great representer of my philosophy, but, I don't believe he is a tyrant either. Obama, on the other hand comes dangerously close to being a tyrant, too close for comfort.

Yes, I'm a Rothbardian, but

Yes, I'm a Rothbardian, but that doesn't change what I've said about voting. Do you believe that your vote will impact the outcome? If not, then you agree with me that a vote for Romney is meaningless as far as getting Obama out of office. If you do believe that your vote will impact the outcome, then I think you are being irrational.

I'm fairly certain that we agree that your vote will have no impact on the outcome, so what is it we disagree on with regards to voting? Also, what is your reason for voting if you agree it won't change the outcome?

My vote will not impact the outcome any more than

your vote impacted the outcome of your state's Republican presidential primary. Now, if you say that the only reason to vote is if a politician agrees with your political philosophy, then I'm voting because Romney agrees with 75%-80% of my philosophy, while Obama only aligns with about 15%-20% of my philosophy. I actually disagree with about 5%-10% of Ron Paul's political positions and governmental philosophy. The only reason why Romney seems to be further away from Ron Paul than he is is because he's a pragmatist and knows what it takes to get elected.

Like I said before, if you

Like I said before, if you agree with his philosophy and want to add yourself to his tally, then I think it is perfectly fine. I, obviously, would never want to be counted as a Romney supporter, but it's fine if we disagree on that. I just don't like when I see all this talk about people needing to vote for Romney to beat Obama. It makes no logical sense considering one persons vote won't matter in effecting the outcome. Once you understand that your single vote won't impact the outcome then the only reason to vote is because you support the philosophy of the person and want to make a symbolic gesture of support by adding one number to his tally.

I also point this out because I think we could have more fruitful conversations if we focused on why you should support a particular candidate or philosophy, rather than saying you should vote this guy so that guy doesn't win. I'm just tired of hearing people say things like, "if you don't vote for X then you are voting for Y" or "If you don't vote for X then you hate this country and the constitution." I'm not saying that you are saying those things, but just giving some friendly, unsolicited advice on a way to make these kind of posts more constructive. Not to say that posting a pro-Romney post isn't going to get a lot of vitriolic responses, he is despised by most of the liberty movement, but it might lessen it a bit. Just my two cents.

One last thing, Ron Paul and Romney are not close philosophically. I only need to point out that Ron Paul is very sympathetic to the anarcho-capitalist philosophy that permeates the LRC and Mises crowd, and in his perfect world the government would only be involved in defense, police, and the judicial system. Romney isn't even close to a min-archist.

The vote for Romney or Obama

Is how the electoral voters are called into action.. so the choice is Romney or Obama for the electoral college.. all other votes are basically voters giving the state personal information for the opportunity to mark a ballot that won't be counted until after the selection.

Granger sure loves to make

Granger sure loves to make comments that add nothing to the discussion, and have almost nothing to do with what is being discussed. Our conversation was a little more nuanced than your typical response. We were perfectly fine having a cordial discussion of our ideas without your nonsense.