^^^thank you. I Know that both the color purple and the color orange have red in it. Pointing out the similarities between the two colors and equating them is a logical fail. the choice this fall is between purple and orange. Sorry that they both have red in them, but that is the choice and there is a difference.

"I'd like to play a little game"...we've been playing that game since January. Game's over. If you want to effect change, then continue working on the grass roots level to elect more conservative candidates. That is a solid strategy that has been working as moderate republicans have been ousted in their primaries for more conservative candidates. But the time to pick POTUS is upon us.

All I know is, that if George Carlin doesn't vote, then I'm not either.

believer;1185630 wrote:What's unfortunate is that it almost always comes down to picking the least damaging candidate in our two-party system.

I agree, but changing this isn't going to suddenly happen. It, like much of politics, has to be a process to happen at all.

But the more people continue to only look at the two candidates thrust at us, the more the current system just continues to be perpetuated.

And in an election like this, where there's no distinguishable difference between the major platforms, it seems even more futile to vote for either of them.

believer;1185630 wrote:We certainly have the option of voting for our most favorite third-party candidate or independent. But while that may give the voter a temporary warm fuzzy feeling of "doing the right thing" it tends to be a de facto vote for the two-party system winner. With the race as close at it is now that will more than likely translate to a vote for 4 more years of Barry.

It's not very warm or fuzzy, let me tell you.

When the VAST majority of people you meet seem to still be stuck voting the false dichotomy, it's downright depressing. But (a) it's necessary to continue killing the choke-hold the two-party system has had on our nation, and (b) when neither of the movie star candidates show any inkling of good for the country on the whole, it just makes no sense to vote any other way.

believer;1185630 wrote:I don't like this any better than the hardcore Pauliban, but I prefer taking the pragmatic route when it comes to selecting the POTUS.

I'm probably roped into the whole "Pauliban" group, since I do strongly support him at the federal level (though I wouldn't vote for him at a state or local level), but I can tell you personally that it's not even about dislike for me. I have no genuine dislike for Romney. He seems like he'd be a good guy, and ANYBODY who runs their own business could learn from him. But POSITIONALLY, I see too much futility in voting for him, whether I plug my nose or not. Either way, I feel like a vote for either popular candidate would be a vote for big government spending, increased military intervention, an increased government presence in the private sector, an increase in infringement on the rights of citizens' privacy and property, etc.

I guess the big thing is that I just don't see the point of ousting the current knucklef**k if all we're going to do is replace him with a white guy who has historically been open about his agreement and roles doing the same kinds of things. I feel like if we put a silly mustache and glasses on Obama, we'd be getting the same result: different physical appearance, but the same principles.

I suppose I at least have some sympathy for the view that "it's just too big to overcome." I don't agree with it, nor do I think giving into it is beneficial in any way, but I can see why someone who has spent their life lamenting the problem that still hasn't changed would be discouraged to the point that they may have given up, so to speak.

believer;1185630 wrote:Romney is Obama-lite blah, blah, blah. But I know for a fact what we have now.

Thing is, the Romnibus isn't some dark cloud, with little-to-no governing experience, and it's not as though he hasn't been VERY vocal about his positions in these dozens of debates that have surrounded the GOP nomination race.

We know what we have, I agree, and what we have is awful. However, we have a pretty good idea what we'll get with the popular alternative, unless he has some divine revelation on inauguration day.

believer;1185630 wrote:I'll wince when I pull the lever for Willard in November but it's better than shooting myself by voting directly - or indirectly - for Obama.

See, I think pulling the lever for "Willard" (I like that nickname, by the way) is doing precisely that, which is a big reason why I see it as a futile choice instead of just an unsavory one.

HitsRus;1185646 wrote:^^^thank you. I Know that both the color purple and the color orange have red in it. Pointing out the similarities between the two colors and equating them is a logical fail. the choice this fall is between purple and orange. Sorry that they both have red in them, but that is the choice and there is a difference.

Fair enough; I'm willing to hear out these differences. What are these distinctions? I know you mentioned party pressure, but if that's the only difference, then one could argue that such logic would necessitate you voting for the opposite candidate if the party roles were reversed.

So by all means, in the spirit of fairness, what are these distinctions that are worthy of labeling them as two, distinct candidates? I'm open to hearing these differences.

HitsRus;1185646 wrote:"I'd like to play a little game"...we've been playing that game since January. Game's over.

Problem is, up until now, that the game hasn't been ended because anyone has come out with any real solution to the riddle. Most just end up taking their ball and going home. Giving up ends a game just like winning it does, but in this case, while some have stopped playing, I've yet to see someone solve the riddle, so to speak.

HitsRus;1185646 wrote:If you want to effect change, then continue working on the grass roots level to elect more conservative candidates. That is a solid strategy that has been working as moderate republicans have been ousted in their primaries for more conservative candidates. But the time to pick POTUS is upon us.

A movement to effect change is going to do so however it can, and if that includes stirring up the top and bottom levels simultaneously, that's going to be the goal. As it stands, I doubt Paul wins the nomination, but with the goal of true fiscal conservatism at all levels of federal government, and with the alternatives not fitting that bill at all, so with the future of our nation at stake, when the time for electing the POTUS is upon is, I see no reason to vote for anyone else when it seems as though only one candidate will bring a positive effect as the POTUS.

Make no mistake, I don't rail on the institutions that stand currently just for the sake of doing so. There are plenty of rebels without a cause, latching onto whatever anti-establishement movement comes up (Tea Party, Pauliban, OWS, etc.), and I find them equally as problematic to any serious movement that has an actual worldview framework behind it (by this, I mean more than just random, one-off talking points). The worldview I espouse is, I believe, the most holistic ... the one that doesn't seem to take exception to itself dependent on the circumstances. It isn't fiscally conservative ... EXCEPT when it comes to 'X'. It doesn't believe in protecting civil liberties ... EXCEPT when 'X' happens.

That's the distinction I see between those who care about policy and those who just want revolution for its own sake. If Paul got up tomorrow and espoused something against small government, I'd be at odds with Paul in a heartbeat.

I do, as well, wish to apologize for the "Romtard" comment. That was inappropriate, and not worthy of being used in authentic dialogue between adults.

There's a big difference between liberal/socialist policies with money you have vs. money you'll never have. BIG big difference. Difference with Romney is he paid for his stuff. Big difference.

gut;1185832 wrote:There's a big difference between liberal/socialist policies with money you have vs. money you'll never have. BIG big difference. Difference with Romney is he paid for his stuff. Big difference.

While in office in Massachusetts? Did he pay for it, or did an increase in taxes from the taxpayers pay for it?

And technically, given an indefinite amount of time, there is no limit to how much money the Federal Government would be able to take from the citizens.

O-Trap;1185851 wrote:While in office in Massachusetts? Did he pay for it, or did an increase in taxes from the taxpayers pay for it?

And technically, given an indefinite amount of time, there is no limit to how much money the Federal Government would be able to take from the citizens.

Technically, the growth rates between spending and revenues indicates a widening and unbridgeable gap.

And even if he did it by raising taxes, Romney still balanced the budget. Obama & Co. can't even agree on a budget,and the simple fact is you can't bridge the gap on taxes alone. As a solution Obama is a non-starter. The question about Romney is not can he but will he. Obama is incapable with a demonstrated lack of fiscal/economic knowledge.

And you can harp about them being the same and two lousy choices. The opportunity for a different option has passed, and now it's time to put on the big-boy pants and make a decision.

OK, let me see if I have this straight...

Obama sucks.
Romney sucks just as much.
Ron Paul, and only Ron Paul, will save the country from ourselves.
People that don't understand Ron Paul are idiot neanderthal redneck country bumpkins.
Either vote for Ron Paul or stay home because we're all screwed if Romneybama or BarackMitt win.
If Paul loses, we can blame evil political parties for our downfall. Just as long as there is someone to blame.

gut;1185886 wrote:Technically, the growth rates between spending and revenues indicates a widening and unbridgeable gap.

Which eventually causes economic collapse. Hence the need to change this, but in doing so, it could be done, again given an indefinite period of time.

I do agree that with the current trends, it is impossible, though.

gut;1185886 wrote:And even if he did it by raising taxes, Romney still balanced the budget. Obama & Co. can't even agree on a budget,and the simple fact is you can't bridge the gap on taxes alone.

With fewer and fewer responsibilities being left to the state and local governments, it would certainly be easier to do at a smaller level as opposed to a federal one. However, per the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, Romney grew state government spending in Massachusetts from $22.47B in 2002 to $25.44B in 2006 (nominal figures, for what it's worth). He might have balanced the budget, but it APPEARS to have been mostly on the taxpayers' backs.

At the federal level, he's going to have an increase in responsibility, some of which is even legitimate (defense comes readily to mind). By his own admission in the debates, he certainly plans to continue the military policy (can't really call a lot of it "defense" in any real sense) that is currently being paid for by a combination of taxpayers and Uncle Sam's credit card.

gut;1185886 wrote:As a solution Obama is a non-starter. The question about Romney is not can he but will he.

I agree with you here. I'm merely suggesting that Romney has offered no indication, whether word or deed, that he will change a whole lot. He has given the nebulous term "cut spending," but that's what he says he did in Massachusetts, and hell, Obama said he'd do the same in his campaigning.

Romney has a pretty good sense on how to run businesses (despite how some of the ventures were funded ... different discussion). However, when it comes to his own admissions and his track record ... I don't see any sign of improvement over now. A balanced budget through fees and tax increases doesn't solve the problem. It draws it out, maybe, but it fixes nothing.

gut;1185886 wrote:Obama is incapable with a demonstrated lack of fiscal/economic knowledge.

No objection here. His worst mistake, honestly, has been that he didn't put economically responsible people around him either. I can live with an economic junior varsity president if he surrounds himself with sound fiscal advice and acts on it.

gut;1185886 wrote: And you can harp about them being the same and two lousy choices. The opportunity for a different option has passed, and now it's time to put on the big-boy pants and make a decision.

If the opportunity for a different option has already passed, then the "decision" is a foregone conclusion, and you don't really have any say anyway, so long as you don't feel any obligation to try to change anything. Hardly seems like the decision that requires "big-boy pants."

Seems like the ones trying to collectively vote and petition and get nominated as delegates against the grain of the rut our political system is stuck in are the ones doing the difficult work ... the ones wearing "big-boy pants."

BGFalcons82;1185923 wrote:OK, let me see if I have this straight...

Obama sucks.
Romney sucks just as much.
Ron Paul, and only Ron Paul, will save the country from ourselves.
People that don't understand Ron Paul are idiot neanderthal redneck country bumpkins.
Either vote for Ron Paul or stay home because we're all screwed if Romneybama or BarackMitt win.
If Paul loses, we can blame evil political parties for our downfall. Just as long as there is someone to blame.

Not quite.

Obama does suck. Romney sucks equally. You were good here.

ANYONE, Ron Paul or otherwise, can IMPROVE (I didn't say save ... I don't even think he can save it, as that's going to be a process) the country by NOT trying to save anyone from themselves and spending as little of their money as possible. While Paul happens to be the current candidate offering such an option, the political worldview is what is important. Not the old man.

Plenty of people who are bright, intelligent people don't understand or agree with the Liberty movement (Paul or anyone who espouses such small-government ideology). I strongly think they are incorrect, but I enjoy discourse with them without thinking them unintelligent. All camps have neanderthals and knuckleheads. With the growth of the Freedom movement, there have been PLENTY such people brought to light within it as well as any other. It's not about who is smart or stupid. It's about who is right and wrong. It's discussion on the logical result of action. I don't think any of you guys (sans maybe one in this thread) are unintelligent at all. Hell, I'm frequently learning new things from a lot of the political minds on here.

Naturally, I would prefer that people vote for anyone who espouses Constitutional government, which right now is indeed Paul. Again, though, it's less to do with him and more to do with what he espouses and has a track record of espousing. Are we screwed pending a victory from the Obama/Romney machine? Depends on what you mean by "screwed." Are we worse off? Certainly. Will we be beyond salvaging by the end of their term(s)? I can't know that, and nobody else can beyond all shadow of doubt, either.

If freedom loses, or the country goes under, we're all to blame, so blame becomes moot. Those in the Liberty movement will be just as responsible for having not done more or gotten involved sooner. Just as we are the United States, we are united in the responsibility to protect ourselves as citizens thereof and to protect our own financial freedoms. If we fail to do so, we are united in being left to pick up the pieces.

Romney did cut spending in MA. You forget he had to pay for Romneycare (which increases overall spending), and again the key is HE PAID FOR IT, with a combination of tax increases and cuts, which is what needs done on the federal level.

We didn't pay for Obamacare and we've never really paid for Medicaid/Medicare. The solution is a combination of cuts and tax increase, but mostly cuts. Or we can bump FICA and add a federal sales tax and be done with it. And in that scenario, once people have to actually start paying for their handouts, then you'll see a sea change to reign in the handouts.

fish82;1185661 wrote:All I know is, that if George Carlin doesn't vote, then I'm not either.

Me too. I don't want to be blamed anymore.

gut;1185970 wrote:Or we can bump FICA and add a federal sales tax and be done with it. And in that scenario, once people have to actually start paying for their handouts, then you'll see a sea change to reign in the handouts.

Doubtful. The morons in DC will find a way to spend the new revenue streams, they'll tell us the system is still broken, and we'll still be arguing about tax increases & spending cuts.

^^^This. The more there is to spend, the more there is to purchase votes. That doesn't abdicate one's responsibility to try to put the "best" people in office. I don't buy the "I am not gonna vote" schtick. We owe it to our posterity. I think if you take the attitude that you are not going to vote because our whole system sucks, than you should ask yourself what you are doing living here. How do you expect that things are going to get better? If you have become that skeptical, then why subject yourself to this horrible country.
Now I'm NOT saying "if you don't like it here GTFO." I'm saying "if it is that bad why don't you look elsewhere". Over the course of modern history people from all over the world have emmigrated here from worse situations abroad. They were trying to find a better life for themselves and their families. It makes sense that if you are not happy here, and you think the situation is hopeless...do what they did, and emmigrate to a place where you will be happier.

I am going to vote, I am just not going to vote for Romney or Obama. I know you will say since I am voting for someone who obviously isn't going to win that I am essentially voting for Obama but it is my right as an American to vote for whoever I feel best fits my needs. That is what this country is about. Maybe if more people voted for their convictions and beliefs instead of some blind loyalty to a party that has abandoned its core principles then we wouldn't have this problem and people wouldnt be so skeptical.

There has to come a point and time in life when you can't accept mediocrity anymore and demand for something better.

pmoney25;1186488 wrote:I am going to vote, I am just not going to vote for Romney or Obama. I know you will say since I am voting for someone who obviously isn't going to win that I am essentially voting for Obama but it is my right as an American to vote for whoever I feel best fits my needs. That is what this country is about. Maybe if more people voted for their convictions and beliefs instead of some blind loyalty to a party that has abandoned its core principles then we wouldn't have this problem and people wouldnt be so skeptical.

There has to come a point and time in life when you can't accept mediocrity anymore and demand for something better.

this

I'm voting race, seems to be the politically correct thing to do based on past election

HitsRus;1186445 wrote:^^^This. The more there is to spend, the more there is to purchase votes. That doesn't abdicate one's responsibility to try to put the "best" people in office. I don't buy the "I am not gonna vote" schtick. We owe it to our posterity. I think if you take the attitude that you are not going to vote because our whole system sucks, than you should ask yourself what you are doing living here. How do you expect that things are going to get better? If you have become that skeptical, then why subject yourself to this horrible country.
Now I'm NOT saying "if you don't like it here GTFO." I'm saying "if it is that bad why don't you look elsewhere". Over the course of modern history people from all over the world have emmigrated here from worse situations abroad. They were trying to find a better life for themselves and their families. It makes sense that if you are not happy here, and you think the situation is hopeless...do what they did, and emmigrate to a place where you will be happier.

Sadly, I've actually contemplated living elsewhere. I don't want to. I love America. I love it's history. I am proud to be American. I believe she's worth my loyalty, so I'd rather stick around and work for change instead of abandoning ship if I don't like what's going on.

But with the financial and economic institutions becoming more and more burdensome, I fear I won't be able to afford to live here forever. Even more tempting are the countries with low taxes AND low cost of living, but that are still modernized enough to not be third-world. It sounds freeing, but I would still rather stick around and see a return to the foundations of America than leave.

O-Trap;1186641 wrote:Sadly, I've actually contemplated living elsewhere. I don't want to. I love America. I love it's history. I am proud to be American. I believe she's worth my loyalty, so I'd rather stick around and work for change instead of abandoning ship if I don't like what's going on.

But with the financial and economic institutions becoming more and more burdensome, I fear I won't be able to afford to live here forever. Even more tempting are the countries with low taxes AND low cost of living, but that are still modernized enough to not be third-world. It sounds freeing, but I would still rather stick around and see a return to the foundations of America than leave.

Curious....what countries would be on your list of possibilities? It has to be more than low cost of living, low taxes, and "not third world." What about the country's political situation? Is it stable? Does it show potential for a stable political and economic future?

I can certainly understand why a growing number of Americans are tempted to exit for - um - greener (?) pastures, but in the final analysis, I think you'll find that there is good reason why far more people want to enter the United States (legally or otherwise) than leave it.

Any place that is greener will come with restrictions. Western Europe is an absolute disaster, if people think the U.S. economy is bad I can assure them it is godawful in the EU. If you want to live in a developing market in South America, Eastern Europe or SE Asia you'll deal with growing pains. If you want to enter an established market like Tokyo, Hong Kong or Singapore you're going to have visa issues, and deal with high costs. I know for a fact that an American can't immigrate into Singapore unless they have an employer sponsored visa that pays them at least S$90K. 3 years ago it was S$30K. Asia is tightening immigration.

I think Romney would be more like Clinton, especially with a Repub Congress. Still seems a lot better choice than Obama to me.

Poll I saw the other day had Americans deadlocked on who (Romney/Obama) understands the economy better. Are you shitting me?

gut;1187213 wrote:I think Romney would be more like Clinton, especially with a Repub Congress. Still seems a lot better choice than Obama to me.

I would agree with that. Obama couldn't get anything of value (ObamaKare does not count) accomplished with his near-Super Majority. I'm more than ready to give Romney a chance to work with a Repub controlled Congress. IF that scenario happens and the Repubs screw it up (probably) I might consider turning to the dark side of the Force. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

gut;1187213 wrote:Poll I saw the other day had Americans deadlocked on who (Romney/Obama) understands the economy better. Are you shitting me?

Why be surprised? We have ourselves to blame for the fiasco in DC.

Canada would be a great place to live sans the really cold weather. They are collectively a very happy group of people. They don't throw away 6.5% (GDP) of their hard earned money galavanting around the globe. Social programs (all countries have them) take precedence over blowing things up and then having to rebuild them.

Footwedge;1187491 wrote:Canada would be a great place to live sans the really cold weather. They are collectively a very happy group of people. They don't throw away 6.5% (GDP) of their hard earned money galavanting around the globe. Social programs (all countries have them) take precedence over blowing things up and then having to rebuild them.

True. The Canucks are more than happy to allow the American taxpayer and military underwrite their safe and cozy little socialist utopia nestled in Uncle Sam's warming embrace.

believer;1187496 wrote:True. The Canucks are more than happy to allow the American taxpayer and military underwrite their safe and cozy little socialist utopia nestled in Uncle Sam's warming embrace.

"Socialist utopia"? Wow. Their tax structure is very similar to ours...without the impending national debt bankruptcy that we face. They run a mixed economy.....just like we do. But you are right in they hide behind the international bully for protection...as do another 80 countires or so do, who claim to be our allies. How do they pay for this protection? They send their annual token of troops to far away places like iraq to placate those that run the hegemon across the globe.

Yup, those Canucks...they piss away about 75% less than the US does per capita per GDP, whenever all the defense related agencies are included. This is one of the major reasons that they are happier...and their quality of life is so much better.

Toronto is probably the only city I'd want to live in in Canada, and it's a pretty exceptional/cosmopolitan city. Realistically, only speaking English I can't imagine my employment opportunities being better than the US, except perhaps Canada or Australia (both of which are having a big natural resources boom, which is really driving their economic growth).

Now places I'd retire (at least part of the year)? That's a much bigger group. I'd actually really enjoy getting immersed in the culture/history of Europe, probably Italy.