The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Archives => Politics => Election 2012 => Topic started by: Penrod on July 11, 2012, 09:17:20 PM
-
The only time i havent voted Libertarian was the two times I voted for Reagan. This is the most important election since then so Im going to have to vote republican once more. Ive never voted Democrat.
-
Someone voted for Ross the Boss Perot.
-
Im not sure why anyone would vote for someone other than the main candidates for the presidential ticket, especially since 3rd party voters could have changed the outcomes of all the close elections.
-
While I have a lot of Libertarian beliefs, half the things the party stands for are pure fruitcake material. A third party vote is pretty much a vote down the toilet in the elections for national office, it basically helps the person you want the least from the two major party coalitions get elected.
-
Been thinking about switching. Is Ralph Nader running this year?
-
Im not sure why anyone would vote for someone other than the main candidates for the presidential ticket, especially since 3rd party voters could have changed the outcomes of all the close elections.
I live in NY so my vote for president is pretty useless anyway. So I vote my conscious. This time it says vote Romney just to make a statement. I doubt he will win NY lol
-
While I have a lot of Libertarian beliefs, half the things the party stands for are pure fruitcake material.
Being libertarians few of us follow any party lines . :lmao: Not even the libertarian party.
-
I live in NY so my vote for president is pretty useless anyway. So I vote my conscious. This time it says vote Romney just to make a statement. I doubt he will win NY lol
A lot of people have that type of mentality and a reason why we need a national vote and not an electoral college vote
Also I believe its conscience, voting your conscious would be voting that you were awake.
-
Being libertarians few of us follow any party lines . :lmao: Not even the libertarian party.
Where in NY?
My almost-five-year-old daughter told me, as I was driving her to day care this morning, that Barack Obama had been President long enough, and she liked Mitt Romney. I was rather proud of her. :-) (Though, in the primaries, I was for Cain, then anybody but Romney. He's the guy that won, so he's the guy.)
-
While I have a lot of Libertarian beliefs, half the things the party stands for are pure fruitcake material. A third party vote is pretty much a vote down the toilet in the elections for national office, it basically helps the person you want the least from the two major party coalitions get elected.
That's the political reality. While I personally hate the two-party system and would LOVE for the Constitutional Party to reign supreme (most of the platform I agree with, but not all of it), that ain't gonna happen.
I'm probably gonna derail the thread a little bit with this, but oh, well. :-)
A couple of planks from the Constitutional Party platform:
These United States is properly a free and sovereign republic which should strive to live in peace with all nations, without interfering in their internal affairs, and without permitting their interference in ours. We are, therefore, unalterably opposed to entangling alliances - via treaties, or any other form of commitment - which compromise our national sovereignty, or commit us to intervention in foreign wars. We are opposed to the negotiation or ratification of any treaty, agreement, or partnership that would deprive United States citizens of their rights protected by the United States Constitution. We are also opposed to any union whether political or economic, of these United States, Mexico, and Canada (NAU).
Under no circumstances should we have unilaterally surrendered our military base rights in Panama. The sovereign right of these United States to the United States territory of the Canal Zone has been jeopardized by treaties between these United States and Panama. Inasmuch as these United States bought both the sovereignty and the grant ownership of the ten-mile-wide Canal Zone, we propose that the government of these United States restore and protect its sovereign right and exclusive jurisdiction of the Canal Zone in perpetuity, and renegotiate the treaties with Panama by which the ownership of the canal was surrendered to Panama.
The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family, and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. We are opposed to amending the U.S. Constitution for the purpose of defining marriage.
We reject the notion that sexual offenders are deserving of legal favor or special protection, and affirm the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior. We oppose all efforts to impose a new sexual legal order through the federal court system. We stand against so-called "sexual orientation" and "hate crime" statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression. We oppose government funding of "partner" benefits for unmarried individuals. Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions.
We recognize that parents have the fundamental right and responsibility to nurture, educate, and discipline their children. We oppose the assumption of any of these responsibilities by any governmental agency without the express delegation of the parents or legal due process. We affirm the value of the father and the mother in the home, and we oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php/documents/2008CPPlatform.pdf
So I gotta go with Plan B.
That means throwing my lot in with the Republicans. :p
-
The only time i havent voted Libertarian was the two times I voted for Reagan. This is the most important election since then so Im going to have to vote republican once more. Ive never voted Democrat.
You realize you're asking that rather silly question on a Conservative/Republican website right?
Who the hell would we switch party affiliation to?
-
You realize you're asking that rather silly question on a Conservative/Republican website right?
Who the hell would we switch party affiliation to
I dont think its silly at all. Are there no other libertarians here? Hannity was infested with Libs:) Do you ban them here?
-
A lot of people have that type of mentality and a reason why we need a national vote and not an electoral college vote
Also I believe its conscience, voting your conscious would be voting that you were awake.
No we dont need to go by the popular vote. All the major population centers are invested with libs:) Ill go by what the founders put in place.
-
That's the political reality. While I personally hate the two-party system and would LOVE for the Constitutional Party to reign supreme (most of the platform I agree with, but not all of it), that ain't gonna happen.
I'm probably gonna derail the thread a little bit with this, but oh, well. :-)
A couple of planks from the Constitutional Party platform:
So I gotta go with Plan B.
That means throwing my lot in with the Republicans. :p
The constitutional party is a bunch of nut jobs who want to amend the hell out of constitution. If you can repeal or amend the constitution on a whim any sort of radical position can be "constitutional"
-
Where in NY?
Ronkonkoma on Long Island.
-
The constitutional party is a bunch of nut jobs who want to amend the hell out of constitution. If you can repeal or amend the constitution on a whim any sort of radical position can be "constitutional"
Care to point out in their platform where they make such claims?
I might've missed it when I read the platform. Did you read it too? :popcorn:
-
No we dont need to go by the popular vote. All the major population centers are invested with libs:) Ill go by what the founders put in place.
The founders thought the average voter was too ignorant to know enough about the issues to make a real vote. That was the case back then but it is no longer the case and because of more and more polarizing of the states plenty of people are feeling disenfranchised.
-
Care to point out in their platform where they make such claims?
I might've missed it when I read the platform. Did you read it too? :popcorn:
They claim the 16th amendment was illegally ratified and want it repealed, they want to repeal the 17th amendment and they wanted to add an amendment I dont remember what it was its been a few months since I read their platform.
-
They claim the 16th amendment was illegally ratified and want it repealed, they want to repeal the 17th amendment and they wanted to add an anointment I dont remember what it was its been a few months since I read their platform.
Okay, so you're saying that they want to REPEAL the 17th Amendment by any other process other than the prescribed one? And they're claiming that the 16th Amendment was illegally ratified and they want to throw that out too? Presumably in the crapper? Without going through the constitutional process to review, ratify, or repeal? Is that what you're saying?
-
I dont think its silly at all. Are there no other libertarians here?
There are people who are of the Neal Boortz brand of Libertarian.
Most of us are just plain old Reagan conservatives.
Hannity was infested with Libs:) Do you ban them here?
If they are the Ron Paul brand of cultist Liberaltarian they are not tolerated.
The reason CC was founded was due to an infestation/invasion of assholes from ronpaul.com at our old home.
Therefore followers of Dr. Nutz are given a VERY short leash.
-
Okay, so you're saying that they want to REPEAL the 17th Amendment by any other process other than the prescribed one? And they're claiming that the 16th Amendment was illegally ratified and they want to throw that out too? Presumably in the crapper? Without going through the constitutional process to review, ratify, or repeal? Is that what you're saying?
Im not sure how they want to do the 16th but they want to do the 17th the prescribed way. Sure its within the limits of the constitution but thats the point. If I wanted to repeal the 1st amendment and make a new one that makes it illegal to say anything against the government it could be "constitutional" but I would be still be a fringe nutjob
-
Im not sure how they want to do the 16th but they want to do the 17th the prescribed way. Sure its within the limits of the constitution but thats the point. If I wanted to repeal the 1st amendment and make a new one that makes it illegal to say anything against the government it could be "constitutional" but I would be still be a fringe nutjob
Using your rather twisted logic, if I, as a member of the Constitution Party, said that I wanted to scrap the 1st Amendment and substitute some other type of "free speech" kind of amendment or revision to it, just how far do you actually think that would go? That's a rhetorical question, btw.
Answer: Nowhere. There are lots of people who want to do lots of different things, but that doesn't make them "fringe nutjobs" necessarily. As long as they're working within the framework of COTUS, let 'em have at it. They're pissing in the wind, frankly, but it's their right and duty to try and affect government the way they see fit.
If they can actually pull it off, of course.
-
There are people who are of the Neal Boortz brand of Libertarian.
Most of us are just plain old Reagan conservatives.
If they are the Ron Paul brand of cultist Liberaltarian they are not tolerated.
The reason CC was founded was due to an infestation/invasion of assholes from ronpaul.com at our old home.
Therefore followers of Dr. Nutz are given a VERY short leash.
Well I love Boortz but Im also definitely a Reagan conservative. I also like Ron Paul. At least I now know where things stand on this forum. Ill have to restrain my libertarian ideas here it seems :) Conservatism first before any man or party. Though my conservatism may be far different from yours. So once more are liberals banned here? Oh and im no Ron Paul cultist thats for sure.
-
Using your rather twisted logic, if I, as a member of the Constitution Party, said that I wanted to scrap the 1st Amendment and substitute some other type of "free speech" kind of amendment or revision to it, just how far do you actually think that would go? That's a rhetorical question, btw.
Answer: Nowhere. There are lots of people who want to do lots of different things, but that doesn't make them "fringe nutjobs" necessarily. As long as they're working within the framework of COTUS, let 'em have at it. They're pissing in the wind, frankly, but it's their right and duty to try and affect government the way they see fit.
If they can actually pull it off, of course.
Which is why I have no fear of the "constitution" party but when people say thing like:
would LOVE for the Constitutional Party to reign supreme
Its like when all the Paultards claim how much better the US would be if we would just elect Ron Paul.
It has no chance of happening but I just feel compelled to point out the crazies.
-
Quote
would LOVE for the Constitutional Party to reign supreme
Quote
would LOVE for the Constitution to reign supreme
There all fixed :)
But that will be the day. I just heard Bob Beckel on the 5 say that the constitution banned women from voting when 1st written. I wanted to throw something at the tv lol And no one challenged him.
How can these clowns swear to uphold it and pull the crap they do?
-
Which is why I have no fear of the "constitution" party but when people say thing like:
Its like when all the Paultards claim how much better the US would be if we would just elect Ron Paul.
It has no chance of happening but I just feel compelled to point out the crazies.
Well, I say "reign supreme" because, in my view, the Republican party has long since forgotten what conservatism is. It's yet another tax and spend political party and with the exception of a few notables, it isn't all that much different than the Dems.
Do not misunderstand -- I elevate NO politician to God-like status, unlike the Paultards. I simply think the Constitution party platform speaks loudest to me, above and beyond any other political party.
The party has no hope or prayer of ever getting anywhere, which is a rotten shame -- so I have to go with the least of several evils.
Mitt Romney is a liar and he routinely takes credit for other's works, IMHO. I've seen it with my own eyes.
But he's the least of two evils -- Obama being, by far, the worst. So when it's time, I'll pull the handle for good ol' lyin' Mitt.
-
The only time I change my affiliation is during the primaries so I can vote for that particular party member. I then change it back to Independent for the general. The reason for that is because Pa is a closed party voting state.
-
3rd party or otherwise will never achieve any kind of national prominence as long as their followers keep abandoning them at the ballot box. Ballot placement, Federal matching dollars etc are all predicated upon achieving a certain percentage of votes in previous elections. Doesn't matter if your candidate won or not they just need votes otherwise why waste time & money on them. The deck isn't stacked against 3rd parties,they are their own worse enemy.
-
Well I love Boortz but Im also definitely a Reagan conservative. I also like Ron Paul. At least I now know where things stand on this forum. Ill have to restrain my libertarian ideas here it seems :)
You are not at a hive mind site like DU or FR. There are libertarians here, classical liberals, and conservatives of all stripes; social, fiscal, religious, and secular. We don't agree on everything.
I agree with most of the people here about most things, but I don't agree with anyone about everything. I am an ethical Stoic with strong objectivist principles. I am a fiscal conservative (Friedman/Austrian School), and a social I-don't-care-atarian (my motto is, "If you don 't start no shit, there won't be no shit.") I expend my energy and moral capital as a father, not as an Internet crusader. I'm not here to change anyone's mind; I'm here to have fun, but I'm not shy about speaking my mind.
So, don't hold back. Be prepared to discuss and defend your opinion, and have fun like the rest of us.
So once more are liberals banned here?
Not for merely being liberal. But if a liberal shows disrespect for pie, boobiez, beer, or bacon, he's gone! Them's the rules.
-
Not me.
I voted libertarian when I was young and stupid in my third presidential election which was Clinton v. Bush. The only good thing about that is I learned a lot.
-
Well, I say "reign supreme" because, in my view, the Republican party has long since forgotten what conservatism is. It's yet another tax and spend political party and with the exception of a few notables, it isn't all that much different than the Dems.
Do not misunderstand -- I elevate NO politician to God-like status, unlike the Paultards. I simply think the Constitution party platform speaks loudest to me, above and beyond any other political party.
The party has no hope or prayer of ever getting anywhere, which is a rotten shame -- so I have to go with the least of several evils.
Mitt Romney is a liar and he routinely takes credit for other's works, IMHO. I've seen it with my own eyes.
But he's the least of two evils -- Obama being, by far, the worst. So when it's time, I'll pull the handle for good ol' lyin' Mitt.
Its cute that you think having the constitution party instead of the republican party would make a difference. It is easy to be an idealist when you will never have to follow through on those ideals. How many of those promises in their platform do you think they could pass without a 60 vote majority senate? almost none. They would get nothing done and then you would be whining and calling them liars just like you are about Romney and the GOP.
-
The libs/dems/socialists are the real obstructionists, they make the GOPers look like pikers.
-
Anyone else switiching parties this election?
Not me. I've been a conservative Republican all of my life.
-
Not me. I've been a conservative Republican all of my life
.
The two dont always go together.
I find many Republicans so called conservative stances a very liberal reading of the constitution
-
Well I love Boortz but Im also definitely a Reagan conservative. I also like Ron Paul. At least I now know where things stand on this forum. Ill have to restrain my libertarian ideas here it seems :) Conservatism first before any man or party. Though my conservatism may be far different from yours. So once more are liberals banned here? Oh and im no Ron Paul cultist thats for sure.
I think you'll find that a lot of people hold libertarian beliefs to some degree.
Take me, for instance--I'm of the mind that there should NOT be a federal law or amendment banning same-sex marriage, just as there shouldn't be hate crimes legislation--both in a sense legislate morality.
But while I'm relatively liberal on social issues (if you want an abortion, I feel it's morally wrong, and you are going to have to answer to your God in your way, and you shouldn't be using anyone else's--read taxpayer--money to fund your "choice") and have no issue with gays/lesbians having civil unions (but marriage is a RELIGIOUS issue--you want to get "married", be part of a religion that recognizes same-sex marriage) I'm pretty damned conservative/Constitutional purist when it comes to the scope of especially the federal government.
But neither am I one of those idiotic "Free State Project" dipshits who think "freedom" is doing whatever the **** you want, either.
-
I think you'll find that a lot of people hold libertarian beliefs to some degree.
Take me, for instance--I'm of the mind that there should NOT be a federal law or amendment banning same-sex marriage, just as there shouldn't be hate crimes legislation--both in a sense legislate morality.
But while I'm relatively liberal on social issues (if you want an abortion, I feel it's morally wrong, and you are going to have to answer to your God in your way, and you shouldn't be using anyone else's--read taxpayer--money to fund your "choice") and have no issue with gays/lesbians having civil unions (but marriage is a RELIGIOUS issue--you want to get "married", be part of a religion that recognizes same-sex marriage) I'm pretty damned conservative/Constitutional purist when it comes to the scope of especially the federal government.
But neither am I one of those idiotic "Free State Project" dipshits who think "freedom" is doing whatever the **** you want, either.
I dont think you can be "part" libertarian. If you advocate liberty in one area but restrict it in another, thats not libertarianism or a degree of libertarianism. Conservatives might agree with some of the same issues that libertarians agree with but they arent anywhere near the same IMO
-
I would say the anti Federalists were Libertarians. Jefferson being a good example
-
“I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism,†Reagan said in 1975.
“The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.â€
He continued, “Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.â€
Were not that far apart.
-
I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism
libertarianism
not
Libertarianism
pretty significant distinction.
-
You mean like how in the DOI were called the united States of America? Not the United States of America? :)
-
I dont think you can be "part" libertarian. If you advocate liberty in one area but restrict it in another, thats not libertarianism or a degree of libertarianism. Conservatives might agree with some of the same issues that libertarians agree with but they arent anywhere near the same IMO
Bullshit--"pure" libertarians aren't much different from anarchists. There are those who hold libertarian beliefs but who recognize they can't just do whatever the **** they want without any check on their actions.
-
Bullshit--"pure" libertarians aren't much different from anarchists. There are those who hold libertarian beliefs but who recognize they can't just do whatever the **** they want without any check on their actions.
Hence the difference between Big L and little l libertarians - there were a few posters back on CU that would argue you could anything you wanted as long as you were in your house, car or other property.
-
.
The two dont always go together.
I find many Republicans so called conservative stances a very liberal reading of the constitution
They go together for me.
-
As for me, if Romney is elected, I'm joining the party of JohnnyReb at my house and get drunk.....JohnnyReb hasn't been "DRUNK" in 28 years.
-
Bullshit--"pure" libertarians aren't much different from anarchists. There are those who hold libertarian beliefs but who recognize they can't just do whatever the **** they want without any check on their actions.
My point was the the "pure" libertarians are the only libertarians, every one else are just plain old conservatives.
-
I dont think you can be "part" libertarian. If you advocate liberty in one area but restrict it in another, thats not libertarianism or a degree of libertarianism. Conservatives might agree with some of the same issues that libertarians agree with but they arent anywhere near the same IMO
Even libertarians don't believe in no restrictions at all, BT. I'll give you an example; libertarians think non-prescription, currently illegal drugs should be fully legalized. I agree with this to a point (see second paragraph below).
But first, note the adjective "non-prescription" in that sentence. In the case of prescription drugs, there aren't any libertarians who would say these medications should be dispensed except under a doctor's supervision (except that there always extremists).
Second, at some point a "drug" becomes a poison. I'm not sure I'd legalize cocaine, because even one use could be deadly, and that efect might be considered to place it in the poison category. But to take it further, where there's no grey area, libertarians would never advocate for the legal sales and purchase of actual poisons, like cyanide and azide.
-
Even libertarians don't believe in no restrictions at all, BT. I'll give you an example; libertarians think non-prescription, currently illegal drugs should be fully legalized. I agree with this to a point (see second paragraph below).
But first, note the adjective "non-prescription" in that sentence. In the case of prescription drugs, there aren't any libertarians who would say these medications should be dispensed except under a doctor's supervision (except that there always extremists).
Second, at some point a "drug" becomes a poison. I'm not sure I'd legalize cocaine, because even one use could be deadly, and that efect might be considered to place it in the poison category. But to take it further, where there's no grey area, libertarians would never advocate for the legal sales and purchase of actual poisons, like cyanide and azide.
Cyanide compounds are legal to buy, sell, and possess. (http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/sigma/60178?lang=en®ion=US&cm_sp=Customer_Favorites-_-Detail_Page-_-Image-60178)
Sodium azide is the principle propellant in air bags, and is available for sale from Fisher Scientific. (http://www.fishersci.com/ecomm/servlet/fsproductdetail?storeId=10652&aid=33577&store=Scientific&segment=researchAnalytical)
Why do you believe libertarians don't support the private ownership, sale, or purchase of industrial chemicals?
-
Ronkonkoma on Long Island.
I would consider moving there just to have that on my return address :)
-
Even libertarians don't believe in no restrictions at all, BT. I'll give you an example; libertarians think non-prescription, currently illegal drugs should be fully legalized. I agree with this to a point (see second paragraph below).
But first, note the adjective "non-prescription" in that sentence. In the case of prescription drugs, there aren't any libertarians who would say these medications should be dispensed except under a doctor's supervision (except that there always extremists).
Second, at some point a "drug" becomes a poison. I'm not sure I'd legalize cocaine, because even one use could be deadly, and that efect might be considered to place it in the poison category. But to take it further, where there's no grey area, libertarians would never advocate for the legal sales and purchase of actual poisons, like cyanide and azide.
You can buy all sorts of poisons over the counter right now. Rat poison for one. I cant believe they havent made the cigarette companies put a skull and crossbones on their packages yet.
There is nothing in the constitution giving the federal government the power to tell you what you can eat or consume. State laws are another matter.
Heres my solution to the crack cocaine problem. A reality show called The crack motel. Where people check in but they only check out permanently. Let everyone see how paranoid and ridiculous people look when smoking that crap never mind all the deaths they would see. Education is the answer to the drug problem just as weve been doing with tobacco not stupid unconstitutional laws. Also there was no drug problem until the government made drugs illegal and put the profit in it.
-
There is profit in drugs including alcohol because drugs are a product people want.
-
There is profit in drugs including alcohol because drugs are a product people want.
Making them illegal vastly increases the profit. The more successful they are in cracking down on it the more profit there is in it. There are far more pot dealers than people selling cigarettes with no stamp to avoid the taxes.
-
Legalizing drugs as a solution to drug problems is a pipe dream. Legalizing will only increase societal drug problems.
-
Legalizing drugs as a solution to drug problems is a pipe dream. Legalizing will only increase societal drug problems.
Im sure you can back that up. Tell me as a juvenile is it easier to get a cigarette or a joint these days? It was the law that caused the problem. The government is great at doing just that over and over. Hardly anyone smoked pot until it was made illegal . I never even heard of a joint in school. It took the marines to introduce me to pot :)
But even if you were correct there is no constitutional basis for such a law. Your body is your own. If you dont own that what do you own? Besides pot wasnt what was meant to be made illegal hemp was and pot was the excuse. It would have hurt Duponts better living through chemistry. Most things can be made of hemp. And it makes great food products.
-
Im sure you can back that up. Tell me as a juvenile is it easier to get a cigarette or a joint these days? It was the law that caused the problem. The government is great at doing just that over and over. Hardly anyone smoked pot until it was made illegal . I never even heard of a joint in school. It took the marines to introduce me to pot :)
But even if you were correct there is no constitutional basis for such a law. Your body is your own. If you dont own that what do you own? Besides pot wasnt what was meant to be made illegal hemp was and pot was the excuse. It would have hurt Duponts better living through chemistry. Most things can be made of hemp. And it makes great food products.
You know it's legal to grow tobacco ? Many teens in the mid atlantic and mid america could easily roll their own tobacco cigarette no problem. One test of constitutionality is case law. There is plenty of case law to support the criminalization of drugs.
-
You know it's legal to grow tobacco ? Many teens in the mid atlantic and mid america could easily roll their own tobacco cigarette no problem. One test of constitutionality is case law. There is plenty of case law to support the criminalization of drugs.
Your showing why it should be legal. You know you used to be able to grow pot and many teens used to roll their own joints no problem? And the age requirement laws are state laws. I have no problem with states banning just about anything. They have more power than the feds. At least if were going by the constitution.
-
Its cute that you think having the constitution party instead of the republican party would make a difference. It is easy to be an idealist when you will never have to follow through on those ideals. How many of those promises in their platform do you think they could pass without a 60 vote majority senate? almost none. They would get nothing done and then you would be whining and calling them liars just like you are about Romney and the GOP.
Who said anything about "making a difference?" You've got your panties in a wad again, sport. Let's try this by the numbers again, just so there's no mistaking what I said:
1. Constitution party speaks to me. The Republican party? Not so much.
2. Romney is a liar. That isn't news. Anybody around him in Utah back in 2002 knows that. Were you there at that time?
-
Who said anything about "making a difference?" You've got your panties in a wad again, sport. Let's try this by the numbers again, just so there's no mistaking what I said:
1. Constitution party speaks to me. The Republican party? Not so much.
2. Romney is a liar. That isn't news. Anybody around him in Utah back in 2002 knows that. Were you there at that time?
Sorry that Im too plugged into the real world for a party that has unrealistic and unattainable political positions to "speak" to me. I also like a lot of what the "constitution" party says but they just arent living in the real world with things like calling the 16th amendment illegal right in their party platform. You and the Paulbots can have the tinfoil hat party where you can consolidate your non-power into even less power.
All big time politicians are liars thats usually how they get there and the republican party isnt perfect. But there are 2 options you can work within a party to make changes and eventually make things better or you can stick your head in the sand and nothing will ever change.
-
Sorry that Im too plugged into the real world for a party that has unrealistic and unattainable political positions to "speak" to me. I also like a lot of what the "constitution" party says but they just arent living in the real world with things like calling the 16th amendment illegal right in their party platform. You and the Paulbots can have the tinfoil hat party where you can consolidate your non-power into even less power.
I guess you missed the part early on in the thread that said I'm stuck with the Repubs. Ain't happy about it, but there it is. I'd call that being real enough, but I guess you're so stuck on trying to make yourself look worldly that you missed that. It's okay -- you're young yet.
All big time politicians are liars thats usually how they get there and the republican party isnt perfect. But there are 2 options you can work within a party to make changes and eventually make things better or you can stick your head in the sand and nothing will ever change.
Did it take this long for you to figure that out? Wow.....
-
I guess you missed the part early on in the thread that said I'm stuck with the Repubs. Ain't happy about it, but there it is. I'd call that being real enough, but I guess you're so stuck on trying to make yourself look worldly that you missed that. It's okay -- you're young yet.
You call wanting an extremist party to reign supreme "real enough". I could careless about "worldly" I'm sick of all the fake GOP that talk a bunch of trash and then just sit back and whine about how thing could be so much better if some random extremist had control. Whether it be Paulbots, pure libertarians, or "constitutionalists" I'm just sick of the extreme all of nothing positions. And yes I am young but I hoping not to be as jaded and bitter as I see so many older conservatives.
-
You call wanting an extremist party to reign supreme "real enough". I could careless about "worldly" I'm sick of all the fake GOP that talk a bunch of trash and then just sit back and whine about how thing could be so much better if some random extremist had control. Whether it be Paulbots, pure libertarians, or "constitutionalists" I'm just sick of the extreme all of nothing positions. And yes I am young but I hoping not to be as jaded and bitter as I see so many older conservatives.
:rotf:
Being jaded and bitter are two conditions that occur when the idealism runs out.
Just sayin'....
-
a reason why we need a national vote and not an electoral college vote
Pardon my blunt honesty, but **** that. Direct democracy was a recipe for disaster in prior governments and (thank the Almighty) our Founding Fathers understood it with diamond like clarity.
-
Pardon my blunt honesty, but **** that. Direct democracy was a recipe for disaster in prior governments and (thank the Almighty) our Founding Fathers understood it with diamond like clarity.
Direct democracy is barely a step above mob rule. An angry rioting looting raping mob. Kinda like the occupoopers.
-
Pardon my blunt honesty, but **** that. Direct democracy was a recipe for disaster in prior governments and (thank the Almighty) our Founding Fathers understood it with diamond like clarity.
Direct democracy is a recipe for disaster for most things on a national scale but when the next leader of the US is more contingent upon the issues that 3 million people in Iowa care about than the 82 million people living in NY, CA and TX thats even more of a disaster for the country.
-
Direct democracy is a recipe for disaster for most things on a national scale but when the next leader of the US is more contingent upon the issues that 3 million people in Iowa care about than the 82 million people living in NY, CA and TX thats even more of a disaster for the country.
Hardly. However, letting major population center, blue shitholes dictate how life is lived elsewhere is a disaster. It is tragedy writ large.
-
:rotf:
Being jaded and bitter are two conditions that occur when the idealism runs out.
Just sayin'....
And that ain't age related, I can tell you. :rant:
-
Hardly. However, letting major population center, blue shitholes dictate how life is lived elsewhere is a disaster. It is tragedy writ large.
Considering 80% of the population lives in your "blue shitholes" you dont think they should have a say in how they live? You think the 20% should have control over the whole country? thats elitism, thats geographic warfare, thats straight out of the Obama playbook. You have millions of people in blue and red states alike that feel disenfranchised with their presidential vote, you dont think that is a problem? Theres only been 4 times where the popular vote and electoral vote didnt match up so its not really a big issue from a practical sense. But I think if more people thought that their vote counted for something then there would be more people engaged in the political process.
-
Considering 80% of the population lives in your "blue shitholes" you dont think they should have a say in how they live? You think the 20% should have control over the whole country? thats elitism, thats geographic warfare, thats straight out of the Obama playbook. You have millions of people in blue and red states alike that feel disenfranchised with their presidential vote, you dont think that is a problem? Theres only been 4 times where the popular vote and electoral vote didnt match up so its not really a big issue from a practical sense. But I think if more people thought that their vote counted for something then there would be more people engaged in the political process.
I think you're overstating it just a wee bit. Take the total population of the 100 largest cities and you're barely cracking 50 million in a nation of 310 million.
For the record, you think Florida in 2000 was a goat****? Multiply that by 50. EVERY FOUR YEARS.
-
I think you're overstating it just a wee bit. Take the total population of the 100 largest cities and you're barely cracking 50 million in a nation of 310 million.
For the record, you think Florida in 2000 was a goat****? Multiply that by 50. EVERY FOUR YEARS.
80% of the population lives in urban areas with populations of 50k or more and just the metro areas of NY, Chicago, LA, DFW and Houston have 53 million people.
and how would every election be like Florida in 2000? Reagan won by 8 and 17 million, Bush 41 won by 7 million, Clinton won by 6 and 8 million, Bush 43 won by 3 million, Obama won by 10 million. None of those would be even close to controversial.
-
For starters, good luck getting the 38 states with the smallest EV counts to just bend over and allow themselves to be dictated by California, NY, and even Texas.
-
For starters, good luck getting the 38 states with the smallest EV counts to just bend over and allow themselves to be dictated by California, NY, and even Texas.
Hey, us Texans would treat them right.
-
For starters, good luck getting the 38 states with the smallest EV counts to just bend over and allow themselves to be dictated by California, NY, and even Texas.
How exactly are they getting dictated to in a popular vote? For instance Louisiana the 25th biggest state has 1.46% of the population and 1.48% of the EC vote.
-
According to 2000 census figures slightly over 50% of the US population resides in the 9 most populated states. That's men women and children. Don't know what the population dispersal is for those of voting age but without the EC it isn't outside the realms of probability that 5 or 6 of the largest metropolitan centers to decide the election by popular vote.
-
According to 2000 census figures slightly over 50% of the US population resides in the 9 most populated states. That's men women and children. Don't know what the population dispersal is for those of voting age but without the EC it isn't outside the realms of probability that 5 or 6 of the largest metropolitan centers to decide the election by popular vote.
It only takes 11 states to win the EC vote. Those same population centers could decide the election under the EC also.
-
It only takes 11 states to win the EC vote. Those same population centers could decide the election under the EC also.
Are those 11 states winner take all in EC ?
-
The whole purpose of the electoral college is to give the small states a say in things. This is not a democracy we are a Republic and for good reason. No conservative in their right mind would suggest we go by the popular vote. Its bad enough they screwed up the Senate by going to electing Senators by the popular vote. In reality giving us 2 houses representing the people and none the states.
-
The whole purpose of the electoral college is to give the small states a say in things. This is not a democracy we are a Republic and for good reason. No conservative in their right mind would suggest we go by the popular vote. Its bad enough they screwed up the Senate by going to electing Senators by the popular vote. In reality giving us 2 houses representing the people and none the states.
I completely agree.
h5
-
The whole purpose of the electoral college is to give the small states a say in things. This is not a democracy we are a Republic and for good reason. No conservative in their right mind would suggest we go by the popular vote. Its bad enough they screwed up the Senate by going to electing Senators by the popular vote. In reality giving us 2 houses representing the people and none the states.
As i pointed out the small states have the same amount of power in either system. They only thing the EC does is it gives the SWING states more importance. You wouldnt call Ohio, Florida, and Virginia "small states" would you? But they have by far more power over which candidate gets elected this election than the other states bigger or smaller.
-
As i pointed out the small states have the same amount of power in either system. They only thing the EC does is it gives the SWING states more importance. You wouldnt call Ohio, Florida, and Virginia "small states" would you? But they have by far more power over which candidate gets elected this election than the other states bigger or smaller.
Do you want to know the real problem with the popular vote as you seem to desire?
I'll let the words of my favorite author point it out:
"The America of today is a laboratory example if what can happen to democracies, what has eventually happened to all perfect democracies throughout history. A perfect democracy, a 'warm body' democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens... which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it... which for the majority translates as 'Bread and Circuses'.
Bread and Circuses is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once the state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in it's weakened condition the state succums to an invader - the barbarians enter Rome." ~ Robert Heinlein
-
Do you want to know the real problem with the popular vote as you seem to desire?
I'll let the words of my favorite author point it out:
"The America of today is a laboratory example if what can happen to democracies, what has eventually happened to all perfect democracies throughout history. A perfect democracy, a 'warm body' democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens... which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it... which for the majority translates as 'Bread and Circuses'.
Bread and Circuses is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once the state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in it's weakened condition the state succums to an invader - the barbarians enter Rome." ~ Robert Heinlein
Im not talking about a popular vote for everything as the quote you posted is clearly talking about. Im talking about just for the presidential election and even in the electoral college system people still vote in their own self interest and since there are almost never faithless electors it is essentially a full democratic vote directly representing what the people want and not a vote of elected representatives.
-
Im not talking about a popular vote for everything as the quote you posted is clearly talking about. Im talking about just for the presidential election and even in the electoral college system people still vote in their own self interest and since there are almost never faithless electors it is essentially a full democratic vote directly representing what the people want and not a vote of elected representatives.
Let's see.... We already have the popular vote for the House, and thanks to the atrocity of the 17th Amendment the Senate also.
Are there any other portions of the original Constitution (includes the Bill of Rights) that you would like to do away with?
-
Here are some of their telling statements from the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
"A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment." -- Delegate Gerry, July 25, 1787
"The extent of the country renders it impossible, that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the candidates." -- Delegate Mason, July 17, 1787
"The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men." -- Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787
Still seems rather true to me.
How else can you explain the current President winning the popular vote?
-
Im not talking about a popular vote for everything as the quote you posted is clearly talking about. Im talking about just for the presidential election and even in the electoral college system people still vote in their own self interest and since there are almost never faithless electors it is essentially a full democratic vote directly representing what the people want and not a vote of elected representatives.
So now you oppose our representative system? The founders knew what they were doing. They had disdain for a direct democracy
“It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.â€
Alexander Hamilton June 21, 1788
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
A writer claimed it was Thomas Jefferson, but it's not in his style.
The Founding Fathers Rejected Democracy
June 25th, 2010
By Dr. Harold Pease
The Founding Fathers universally rejected democracy and hoped that posterity would never turn the United States into one. The word they used was “Republic,†which is not synonymous with “Democracy.†The word “Democracy†is not in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. Even the Pledge of Allegiance is “to the Republic for which it stands.â€
Benjamin Franklin defined democracy as “two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.â€
So why did they reject Democracy? Because it is inherently flawed with the “share the wealth†philosophy, which only works as long as there is someone else’s money to share. Those receiving are quite pleased with getting something for nothing. But those forced to give are denied the right to spend the benefits of their own labor in their own self-interest, which creates jobs no matter how the money is spent. They also lose a portion of their incentive to produce.
Founders rejected Democracy
http://www.libertyunderfire.org/2010/06/the-founding-fathers-rejected-democracy/ (http://www.libertyunderfire.org/2010/06/the-founding-fathers-rejected-democracy/)
-
Here are some of their telling statements from the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
"A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment." -- Delegate Gerry, July 25, 1787
"The extent of the country renders it impossible, that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the candidates." -- Delegate Mason, July 17, 1787
"The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men." -- Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787
Still seems rather true to me.
How else can you explain the current President winning the popular vote?
If you think that you are to ignorant to choose who should be president then why are you even on a political forum? Or do you just think that you are educated enough but others arent?
-
He didnt say he was to ignorant lol
-
So now you oppose our representative system? The founders knew what they were doing. They had disdain for a direct democracy
We dont have a really have representative system though, If an EC voter thinks Romney would be the best president but the people of his state voted for Obama in most states he is legal bound to vote for Obama. So you can talk all you want and founding fathers and a the "original" constitution but you ignore reality.
-
We dont have a really have representative system though, If an EC voter thinks Romney would be the best president but the people of his state voted for Obama in most states he is legal bound to vote for Obama. So you can talk all you want and founding fathers and a the "original" constitution but you ignore reality.
What the reality that we have trashed it? And you would further wreck it? We dont have a representative system because the jerks in charge do what they like not what we want.Its our fault for taking it. Vote all these bums out. We need to get rid of laws not pass new ones at this point. Get back to the really upholding the constitution.
-
If you think that you are to ignorant to choose who should be president then why are you even on a political forum? Or do you just think that you are educated enough but others arent?
I know for a fact that many others aren't. I give you Peggy Joseph:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI&feature=fvwrel
This is just one example.
Now I may not be the most politically informed person in the country, but I'm willing to bet that I am more politically informed than the majority of voters.
-
Let's see.... We already have the popular vote for the House, and thanks to the atrocity of the 17th Amendment the Senate also.
Are there any other portions of the original Constitution (includes the Bill of Rights) that you would like to do away with?
Repeat post for BigTex.
-
What the reality that we have trashed it? And you would further wreck it? We dont have a representative system because the jerks in charge do what they like not what we want.Its our fault for taking it. Vote all these bums out. We need to get rid of laws not pass new ones at this point. Get back to the really upholding the constitution.
That has no meaning and not because people have stripped it of its meaning, It is because the constitution strictly limits the powers of the federal govt but vaguely defines them. The constitution has always been an interpretation. We condem that now because we dont like most of the things that have been interpreted by progressive liberals but we just gloss over the stuff we do like such as the supreme court granting itself the power to strike down unconstitutional laws.
-
Let's see.... We already have the popular vote for the House, and thanks to the atrocity of the 17th Amendment the Senate also.
Are there any other portions of the original Constitution (includes the Bill of Rights) that you would like to do away with?
Repeat post for BigTex.
Sure why not, amend the supremacy and commerce clauses to strictly define and limit their powers. There's probably others but thats off the top of my head.
-
Sure why not, amend the supremacy and commerce clauses to strictly define and limit their powers. There's probably others but thats off the top of my head.
Ok... I'm game.
In what fashion would you like to see them amended.
Write out the actual text of the amendments you would like to see implemented.
-
As i pointed out the small states have the same amount of power in either system. They only thing the EC does is it gives the SWING states more importance. You wouldnt call Ohio, Florida, and Virginia "small states" would you? But they have by far more power over which candidate gets elected this election than the other states bigger or smaller.
Curious thing about swing states. They are called that because they have a mostly balanced electorate. Liberals and conservatives make up most of the voters in those states, but not enough to tip the scales. It's up to the candidates to woo the undecideds in those states.
So, by your thinking the ones with the power to elect a president are a very small minority of voters.
-
Ok... I'm game.
In what fashion would you like to see them amended.
Write out the actual text of the amendments you would like to see implemented.
Im not a legislator or a lawyer so I dont know the exact verbiage necessary to make them happen. For the supremacy clause I would like to see a limit on how much US law can be forced by the treaties we make and when treaties get modified that we arent forced into changing US law. For the commerce clause I would like the see specific limits set and limit it specifically to commerce.
-
Im not a legislator or a lawyer so I dont know the exact verbiage necessary to make them happen. For the supremacy clause I would like to see a limit on how much US law can be forced by the treaties we make and when treaties get modified that we arent forced into changing US law. For the commerce clause I would like the see specific limits set and limit it specifically to commerce.
I can't argue against that.
-
That has no meaning and not because people have stripped it of its meaning, It is because the constitution strictly limits the powers of the federal govt but vaguely defines them. The constitution has always been an interpretation. We condem that now because we dont like most of the things that have been interpreted by progressive liberals but we just gloss over the stuff we do like such as the supreme court granting itself the power to strike down unconstitutional laws.
Better tell that to those in charge . Liberals see it as a living document with few limits on federal power. The only reason Obuma uses the constitution is to find ways to go around it. As long as we elect people who dont uphold the constitution were screwed.
-
Pardon my blunt honesty, but **** that. Direct democracy was a recipe for disaster in prior governments and (thank the Almighty) our Founding Fathers understood it with diamond like clarity.
QFT.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
-
I can understand not liking Pauls foreign policy but he has many good ideas and is the father of the TEA party movement. On monetary issues hes one of the best. And he at least believes in the constitution. I think however most libertarians like myself realize whats at stake in this election. If Obuma is re elected America as we know it will be a thing of the past. We will be the United State of America.
-
I can understand not liking Pauls foreign policy but he has many good ideas and is the father of the TEA party movement. On monetary issues hes one of the best. And he at least believes in the constitution. I think however most libertarians like myself realize whats at stake in this election. If Obuma is re elected America as we know it will be a thing of the past. We will be the United State of America.
:awjeez:
-
:awjeez:
The only ones I've heard claiming Paul is the father of the TEA Party movement are Paulbots. No sane people so far.
-
but he has many good ideas and is the father of the TEA party movement.
No...he's not. You cultists stole that title and gave it to him to try and make him look like he had the full force of the TEA party patriots behind him...when clearly he doesn't.
On monetary issues hes one of the best.
He wants to destroy the economy of this nation and that of others that invest in America.
How is that "the best"?
And he at least believes in the constitution.
Only the parts that suit him.
I think however most libertarians like myself realize whats at stake in this election. If Obuma is re elected America as we know it will be a thing of the past. We will be the United State of America.
IF you truly care about this country...why support a complete loon like Ron Paul?
-
and is the father of the TEA party movement.
Link, please.
-
Link, please.
www.ronpaulteapartyfounder.com :rofl:
-
Jesus I like some his ideas but not enough to vote for him. Give me a break. Im no Paulbot.
The theme of the Boston Tea Party, an iconic event in American history, has long been used by anti-tax protesters.[12][13][14] It was part of Tax Day protests held throughout the 1990s and earlier.[15][16][17][18] By 2001, a custom had developed among some conservative activists of sending tea bags to legislators and other officials via postal mail as an act of symbolism.[19]
More recently, the anniversary of the original Boston Tea Party was commemorated on December 16, 2007,[20] by Republican Congressman Ron Paul supporters who held a "Boston tea-party event" in 2007 which was a fundraiser for the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign which advocated an end to fiat money and the Federal Reserve System, disengaging from foreign entanglements in Iraq and Afghanistan, and upholding States' rights.[21][22][23]
Maybe not the father but very influential in the Tea party. Again I think you guys were pelted by his followers so much you cant stand the sound of his name anymore :)
How about Rand? How do you feel about him?
-
As far as I know, Rick Santelli introduced the Tea Party idea to the public.
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA[/youtube]
Ron Paul is doing his usual bandwagon-jumping, much like the "I didn't vote for any earmarks" garbage he likes to use during election season that pulls in so many gullible fools. Giving him credit for anything other than introducing the equivalent of a flash mob of jerks and assholes into everyday political discourse is a joke.
-
Jesus I like some his ideas but not enough to vote for him. Give me a break. Im no Paulbot.
Maybe not the father but very influential in the Tea party. Again I think you guys were pelted by his followers so much you cant stand the sound of his name anymore :)
How about Rand? How do you feel about him?
Rand Paul? I'm indifferent.
Ayn Rand? Big fan (and I know Ayn Rand was a "she").
-
Jesus I like some his ideas but not enough to vote for him. Give me a break. Im no Paulbot.
Maybe not the father but very influential in the Tea party. Again I think you guys were pelted by his followers so much you cant stand the sound of his name anymore :)
That's pretty accurate, with this to boot - There isn't much about Dr. Nutz that hasn't been analyzed, dissected, and scrutinized before eventually discarding him and his minions. Don't make the mistake of thinking that those who reject Dr. Nutz and his cadre do so without careful analysis.
If you take a month or so and do a search on Ron Paul on this web site, you will find more than enough to keep you busy. Dr. Nutz has been discussed ad nauseum for a very, very long time.
How about Rand? How do you feel about him?
The idiom "a nut doesn't fall far from its tree" works well here.
-
Rand bothers me because of his statements that he things the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional.
-
Rand bothers me because of his statements that he things the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional.
It just struck me, that he may have a point. Why was there a push to pass the Equal Rights Amendment back in the 70's if equal rights could be forced on people by laws?
The only thing that I've heard Rand Paul mention regarding civil rights, is that enforcing them often violates the rights of someone else. Granted, I usually tune him out, because he sounds a lot like Dr. Nutz.
-
I like wht Rand had to say here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6psADVKIDEY
-
Rand Paul? I'm indifferent.
Ayn Rand? Big fan (and I know Ayn Rand was a "she").
In the biblical sense ? If so, aren't you bragging a bit ?
-
In the biblical sense ? If so, aren't you bragging a bit ?
I do everything in the biblical sense.