Why I will vote for Willard
Submitted by HuskerSkier on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 01:20Because he will bomb more, spend more, and will hasten the speed of this collapse. Then TPTB lose and will have to sell us to the chinese... and while that won't be cool at least we won't be ruled by these dirt bags...
Unless of course they already own the chinese, in which case this whole thing will really feel like a kick in the nuts.
PS. I'm not voting for either of these clowns.
»
- Login to post comments
The worse, the better
This guy makes the same argument.
http://www.dailypaul.com/258734/america-on-the-cusp-of-fascism
Don't we want Obama to win?
That will allow for a Paul to run against a democrat, not an incumbent...
If Obama wins, that democrat that runs in 2016, will
wipe the floor with that Paul that might run in 2016. The only reason Obama's not kicking Romney's butt is because Romney moved to the center on economic issues. In the current political climate, I'm fairly certain Obama would beat Rand in a landslide. People like their government and don't want anyone messing with it. If Obama wins, and the economy continues to slowly pull itself out of the economic slump its in, it will vindicate the Democratic Party platform and a Democrat will win in 2016.
Have you not been paying attention?
the economy isn't going to pull itself out of the economic slump. the economic conditions are getting worse.
I don't know where you're getting your data from,
but, the unemployment rate (including the percentage of work-eligible people who have given up looking for a job has been slowly, but, steadily dropping. The economy is slowly readjusting despite the efforts by the government to halt that readjustment. Plus, you're got to remember the Federal Reserve factor. The Fed in an attempt to boost the economy will find a bubble and blow it up somewhere in the next four years.
Do you understand how the business cycle works??
ok, now go look at interest rates and you tell me what's coming.
I want Obama to win (though I
I want Obama to win (though I will vote for Johnson) because when the collapse comes I don't want people to have any excuse to falsely blame "the free market."
You must be the 50th person I've heard make
that kind of statement. First of all, there isn't going to be any crash in the next four years. Secondly, if you feel so strongly that there's going to be a crash in the next four years, why did you support Ron Paul. If Ron Paul had been elected and the crash came, people would for sure blame the free market. Thirdly, let's suppose Obama gets reelected and "The Crash"TM does come. FDR got elected in 1932 running against the free market. The economy improved at a snail's pace and he got reelected in a landslide in 1936. The economy crashed in 1937 and by 1940, the country was no better than it was when FDR first took office in '32 and still FDR won a third term by a landslide.
Now. Can you point out to me ONE time in history where there was an economic crash that caused people to turn to the free market? I'm a history major and I can't think of one.
You must be a very wealthy
You must be a very wealthy man, since you can predict when crashes will occur and when they will not. I wish I had your foresight!
I can name several examples. Coolidge won in a landslide in 1924 despite a depression in the first part of Harding's term. FDR did not "run against the free market" in 1932. He was all things to all people. Some his speeches foreshadowed the New Deal but his Pittburgh speech on the eve of the 1932 is a blistering attack on Hoover's big government record. Voters responded to the post-WWII recession by electing a Republican Congress that ran against big government. Finally, Reagan won during the high unemployment/high inflation election of 1980 running as a free market candidate.
It is true that FDR won in 1940 but he took a beating in the off year elections of 1938 and a conservative Congress helped keep him in check for the rest of his time in office. Had FDR run in 1938, he probably would have lost.
The only problem with that is..
that if Willard attacks Iran for nut-n-yahoo, China and Russia may get involved. Nut-n-yahoo may launch a nuke. Then it's on. I don't wanna be nuked. I will vote for GJ and hope for the best.
Exactly, and "we" would lose
we are spread way to thin, our troops are war worn, and our underlying economic structure is about to fall. The only thing we are left with is madmen and nukes. It's really scary.
I've already decided--
I'm pretty sure I'm going to the polls, because there's a state person I think I can vote for--
while I'm there I'm going to write in: Ron Paul
it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--
Me too!!
I'm writing in Ron Paul!
Same.
Unlike others, when I said "NO ONE BUT RON PAUL," I meant it.
I don't play, I commission the league.
Wow.
Wow.
Before I reached your Post Scriptum ...
... you got me worried !
My name's pronounced like "see real". Its root is "Lord".
"The demand of a great people is always at the scale of its most serious misfortunes." --De Gaulle
http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty
Cthulu 2012. Why vote for the
Cthulu 2012. Why vote for the lesser of evils when you can vote for evil itself?
This libertarian makes a compelling case
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/a-libertarian-for-mitt...
And please read it and dont yell the retarded "hes not a real libertarian" cry.
Then I'll just yell the
Then I'll just yell the "you're a retard" cry.
Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.
http://simplefactsplainarguments.blogspot.com
He doesn't make a compelling
He doesn't make a compelling case and HE'S NOT A REAL LIBERTARIAN!
It's not about keeping Obama in office or replacing him with his twin brother in war making... It's about taking the US back from people who don't give a damn if this country goes up in flames or not. I honestly think both candidates are attempting to either push us into a "final conflict", aka Armageddon, or they are trying to misguidedly make us a branch office for a world government.
Fight these rotten crime lords until there's no more fight left in you!
www.gunowners.org
Ummmm
"I continued to support him even after he left the Republican Party and became the Libertarian Party’s nominee for President. Indeed, I am a DC elector for Gary Johnson."
Paultard. Im supporting Johnson but you people make us look like immature kids.
Oh, really...
"...you people make us look like immature kids" but you're the one calling names like "Paultard?"
Perhaps you ought to take your own advice before you make a fool out of yourself.
"Fairy tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten."
— G.K. Chesterton
Keep on throwing around the
"youre not a REAL libertarian" and not helping our cause, then. Sure, youll get up votes here, but elsewhere people will just slam their door in your face.
I'm not a Libertarian...
so I don't waste my time saying "you're a 'real Libertarian', I know enough to know what Libertarianism stands for. I am a Classical Liberal. So, I don't really know the point you're making.
"Fairy tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten."
— G.K. Chesterton
Especially since I've already
Especially since I've already sent in my absentee ballot for Johnson.
www.gunowners.org
Ok, I won't say that, however....
they keep saying 'Libertarian', and perhaps it doesn't mean what they think it means?
I've noticed the Mittiots and the Breitbartarians are attempting to take over the word 'Libertarian', it's all over twitter.
Neocons, jingoists, and coercionists have 'Libertarian' in their profile, and judging by their tweets, they are most definitely NOT Libertarian.
I consider myself a Classical Liberal, and in my small way trying to take back the word 'Liberal' from the progressives, tis a hard task.
I would not let them take over the word.
"Fairy tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten."
— G.K. Chesterton
Maybe we should start calling ourselves...
the "Gay Marriage-Supporting Abortionist Atheist Democrats". The neocons would NEVER co-opt that one. :P
I don't play, I commission the league.
ummm
"I continued to support him even after he left the Republican Party and became the Libertarian Party’s nominee for President. Indeed, I am a DC elector for Gary Johnson."
Did you read it or not?
They attempt to co-opt the
They attempt to co-opt the word Libertarian, just like they glommed onto the the Tea Party idea after we and Ron took up that rallying cry. They are just thought-vampires.
www.gunowners.org
Exactly!
My poor Libertarian friends have to say they are Anarchists now. My Anarchists friends are happy because they have been trolling the RP people to grow their movement. It's madness, I tell you, MADNESS! ;)
"Fairy tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten."
— G.K. Chesterton
couldn't agree more
It's what they do; they're thieves.
Rmoney only started talking about anything constitutional because Dr. Paul was and saw how that was working. He's all about the NDAA (???) pfff - I can't stand him.
And I think he's going to be twice as vicious as 0bama... sure wish they'd take a plane ride together, over the same war-torn places their drooling to send our trooper into... no 2nd amendment for them either.