I Wear Pants;939416 wrote:Doesn't have to propose it, the fact that he would/wouldn't support those measures is enough that gays won't vote for him. Why would they?

Its not a federal issue. What gay couples would miss out in their blindness is for once to be treated equally by the federal tax code. Cain's plan does not pick winners or losers. It does not reward or punish one Americans activity over another. All Americans are treated equally as individuals. Cain is the only one proposing the elimination of discrimination via the tax code.

majorspark;939435 wrote:Its not a federal issue. What gay couples would miss out in their blindness is for once to be treated equally by the federal tax code. Cain's plan does not pick winners or losers. It does not reward or punish one Americans activity over another. All Americans are treated equally as individuals. Cain is the only one proposing the elimination of discrimination via the tax code.

What?

I Wear Pants;939440 wrote:What?

Its the "group" mentality. Politicians love it. They play one off the other. This group gets this another gets that. Conform to the group think and politicians will pencil you in for some goodies. Just throw it all out and treat us all equally as individuals.

The quicker you people start accepting Romney will be your nominee, the better. Cain's 9-9-9 plan is irrelevant, because he's not getting the nom.

2kool4skool;939449 wrote:The quicker you people start accepting Romney will be your nominee, the better. Cain's 9-9-9 plan is irrelevant, because he's not getting the nom.

Kinda playing fast and loose with the word "better," wouldn't you say?

O-Trap;939347 wrote:If the Republicans are wanting to play for the easiest win, they'd pick a candidate that (a) Republicans will vote for, and (b) will win the greatest portion of the third party and independent voters. Paul fits that bill better than any other candidate.

Perhaps but unless he can put together some miraculous grassroots momentum, Paul doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination. I like Paul and I am considering voting for him in the primary but when Romney gets the eventual nomination, I'll hold my nose and pull the lever for him in 2012 just as I did with McCain in 2008.

O-Trap;939347 wrote:I would vote either third party or Ditka at that point.

So you'll be voting for Obama again?

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/10/a-tale-of-two-presidents.html

believer;939466 wrote:Perhaps but unless he can put together some miraculous grassroots momentum, Paul doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination. I like Paul and I am considering voting for him in the primary but when Romney gets the eventual nomination, I'll hold my nose and pull the lever for him in 2012 just as I did with McCain in 2008.

What is it, then, that makes the Republican base throw logic out the window on this, then? If the Republicans are dedicated to just getting the current President out of office (it's a sad state if they aren't going to stand for anything more than this), then why is it a long shot to get the guy most agreeable to the largest demographic in the general election?

believer;939466 wrote: So you'll be voting for Obama again?

Not on your life, but anyone voting for Romney might as well be. You're gonna get the same thing out of him. If I vote for Paul in the general (or the person who embodies the philosophy of small government and liberty the most), I'm voting for the person the LEAST like the incumbent, whereas anyone who would be voting for Romney (or some of the other schleps in the running) would be voting for someone who has a lot in common with Obama in terms of track record.

It would seem, then, that those who would vote for someone more similar to Obama are the ones closer to voting for him.

Moreover, as long as most people blindly accept the logical fallacy you're espousing here (False Dilemma, False Dichotomy, or Excluded Middle, depending on your learning experience), there won't be any victor except for the two parties' propped-up candidate. The belief that you should vote for a candidate because it gets the incumbent out of there only perpetuates the inevitability of someone like that candidate returning at a later date, because you admit that Romney ... for lack of a more appropriate term ... blows as a candidate.

Say Romney or another "lesser evil" does get elected. He bum rapes the country for the four years he's in office, and the people get (or stay) pissed. Now, their discontentment is with the Republican in office, so guess who many of them are going to vote for. Yep, the next DEMOCRAT candidate.

Voting for a poor candidate just because he's "not Obama" (a technicality with Romney) does nothing but give someone with Obama's ideals more ammo for the following election.

As such, by voting the way you vote, you're only helping the Democrats retake the White House sooner instead of later.

All that to say, no. I am not voting for a big-government, fiscally irresponsible, wasteful, militant candidate ... and I'm voting in such a way to try to keep such a candidate from taking the White House back at a later date as well.

If a person votes for Romney, however, they're voting for that kind of candidate in him AND they're fueling the flames that will help a Democrat counterpart reclaim the White House after Romney.

^^^Bottom-line: Paul will not be the Repub nominee let alone become POTUS. So we're stuck with 4 more years of Obama or 4 years of Romney (or maybe even Cain if we're lucky).

While I appreciate your convictions, I personally cannot in good conscience vote for any 3rd party candidate and indirectly assist with the re-election of Obama.

believer;940154 wrote:^^^Bottom-line: Paul will not be the Repub nominee let alone become POTUS. So we're stuck with 4 more years of Obama or 4 years of Romney (or maybe even Cain if we're lucky).

While I appreciate your convictions, I personally cannot in good conscience vote for any 3rd party candidate and indirectly assist with the re-election of Obama.

How can you in good conscience vote for a candidate who you don't think is the best?

If I vote for Obama, the GOP candidate, or a third party it will because I think they are the best candidate.

I Wear Pants;940380 wrote:How can you in good conscience vote for a candidate who you don't think is the best?

If I vote for Obama, the GOP candidate, or a third party it will because I think they are the best candidate.

At some point the line of practicality kicks in for everyone. For some, "best" really means the best, meaning they write in anyone who best fits their ideals, whether anyone else has heard of him/her or not.

Others define "best" as the one candidate out of the two who actually have a snowball's chance.

jhay78;940425 wrote:At some point the line of practicality kicks in for everyone. For some, "best" really means the best, meaning they write in anyone who best fits their ideals, whether anyone else has heard of him/her or not.

Others define "best" as the one candidate out of the two who actually have a snowball's chance.

As long as everyone prescribes to the second line of thinking we will bounce between shitty Democrats and shitty Republicans.

[video=youtube;B7RaYbToq7Q][/video]

The only two republican candidates that I can enthusiastically back in the general election are Cain and Paul. Both back radical changes in the federal government.

believer;940154 wrote:^^^Bottom-line: Paul will not be the Repub nominee let alone become POTUS. So we're stuck with 4 more years of Obama or 4 years of Romney (or maybe even Cain if we're lucky).

Okay, I have a question. Why do you not apply the same principle in the primaries? If Paul has "no chance" of winning the primary, then is a vote for Paul just a contribution to helping Romneycare (aka Obama Lite) get the nod? If so, under your own thinking, why would you even think of voting for Paul instead of the biggest threat to Romney?

believer;940154 wrote: While I appreciate your convictions, I personally cannot in good conscience vote for any 3rd party candidate and indirectly assist with the re-election of Obama.

And I cannot, in good conscience, vote for a candidate who preaches fiscal conservatism while openly and proudly admitting to a willingness to spend trillions on unnecessary military action. Any candidate who holds his own or his party's sacred cow above a consistent follow-through on a platform of economic responsibility will not be a solution. He will only be a different problem ... a problem that will only further the subsequent election of the next candidate in the Democrat Pez dispenser.

jhay78;940425 wrote:At some point the line of practicality kicks in for everyone. For some, "best" really means the best, meaning they write in anyone who best fits their ideals, whether anyone else has heard of him/her or not.

Others define "best" as the one candidate out of the two who actually have a snowball's chance.

So some see "best" as synonymous with "just not the worst."

I Wear Pants;940432 wrote:As long as everyone prescribes to the second line of thinking we will bounce between shitty Democrats and shitty Republicans.

And I have a feeling that we still have a long, long, LONG time before enough people stop playing Hatfields & McCoys at the federal level.

Hamler Bulldogs;938436 wrote:If Ron Paul was about 15 years younger.i'd vote for him in a heartbeat,he's just to old.

[video=youtube;LoPu1UIBkBc][/video]

Iowa: Cain 28% Romney 21% Paul 10%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/iowa/2012_iowa_republican_caucus

The republican establishments candidate is Romney. Big government republicans really have no where else to go. Although Huntsman did have his best debate performance so far last Tuesday. Conservatives are splitting their votes over the rest of the field.

majorspark;940460 wrote:[video=youtube;LoPu1UIBkBc][/video][/QUOT

Without a doubt....one of Reagan's greatest debate moments. Thanks for posting...I remember that like it was yesterday.

jhay78;940425 wrote:Others define "best" as the one candidate out of the two who actually have a snowball's chance.

THIS with the commonsensical realization that in American politics (at least at the Federal level) we are doomed to pick the establishment candidate who best fits our own personal political views....and admittedly that sometimes means there isn't a whole lot of difference between the two.

Federal politics is controlled by corporate America, big unions, foreign lobbyists, $pecial interest groups, and the heavily leftist mainstream media. The American voters are pawns generally forced to choose the establishment automaton selected by the true power brokers.

Granted there may be a strong third party or independent candidate on the ballot that is a truer fit to the voter's personal political convictions. While it may make the voter feel morally superior temporarily for having pulled the lever for that person, their votes tend to be a default or indirect vote for the worst of two establishment candidates which only assists with the perpetuation of stupidity in DC by helping us all jump off the cliff a little faster.

I don't know about you but I'd rather get there a little slower. Hence I have no issue being a pussy for pulling the lever of the lesser of two evils.

believer;940510 wrote:THIS with the commonsensical realization that in American politics (at least at the Federal level) we are doomed to pick the establishment candidate who best fits our own personal political views....and admittedly that sometimes means there isn't a whole lot of difference between the two.

Federal politics is controlled by corporate America, big unions, foreign lobbyists, $pecial interest groups, and the heavily leftist mainstream media. The American voters are pawns generally forced to choose the establishment automaton selected by the true power brokers.

Granted there may be a strong third party or independent candidate on the ballot that is a truer fit to the voter's personal political convictions. While it may temporarily make the voter feel morally superior for having pulled the lever for that person, their votes tend to be a default or indirect vote for the worst of two establishment candidates which only assists with the perpetuation of stupidity in DC by helping us all jump off the cliff a little faster.

I don't know about you but I'd rather get there a little slower. Hence I have no issue being a **** for pulling the lever of the lesser of two evils.

2 lemmings were standing on the edge of a cliff. One said to the other, "should we jump?". The other lemming replied "we have to jump. If we don't all the previous lemmings before us who have jumped, will have jumped in vain."

Footwedge;940982 wrote:2 lemmings were standing on the edge of a cliff. One said to the other, "should we jump?". The other lemming replied "we have to jump. If we don't all the previous lemmings before us who have jumped, will have jumped in vain."

You've just pegged the American political system.

believer;941336 wrote:You've just pegged the American political system.

Exactly.... I'm grateful that you didn't think my "joke" was aimed at you.

Footwedge;941428 wrote:Exactly.... I'm grateful that you didn't think my "joke" was aimed at you.

Naw....I knew exactly what you meant and I agree.

Ron Paul like a boss. How can a conservative not vote for this guy? I really think that the msm media is afraid of paul because they can't use their gotcha questions against him. The only candidate that can fix this country in my opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZRHa8GIYo4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

pmoney25;943196 wrote:Ron Paul like a boss. How can a conservative not vote for this guy? I really think that the msm media is afraid of paul because they can't use their gotcha questions against him. The only candidate that can fix this country in my opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZRHa8GIYo4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Someday, there will be enough actual conservatives with a set on them to vote someone like this in. I doubt it will be in his lifetime.

But as the citizen of a country whose foundations are rooted in the defense of liberty against unfavorable odds (War for Independence would mirror this, even), I will vote for what is best for America. Right now, that is Ron Paul.