So a guy walks into Eric Holder's polling precinct . . .

[HeinBallz]

The way I see it Romney or Obama we're screwed either way.  A write in for Paul relieves my conscious of feeling like a dumb ass for voting for someone I knew would do things I don't agree with.  I learned my lesson after voting for Bush W twice.  I don't care who other people vote for. I will NEVER vote against my conscious again.  People NOT voting for Ron Paul are the ones wasting their vote.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

The way I see it Romney or Obama we're screwed either way.  A write in for Paul relieves my conscious of feeling like a dumb ass for voting for someone I knew would do things I don't agree with.  I learned my lesson after voting for Bush W twice.  I don't care who other people vote for. I will NEVER vote against my conscious again.  People NOT voting for Ron Paul are the ones wasting their vote.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Idealism is what has gotten use into this mess. Time for a little realism.

[HeinBallz]

calling me idealistic is WRONG.   Is it idealistic to rob from the poor to bail out the rich?   Greedy people buying votes is what got us into this problem.

If you want a realistic president, you should vote for someone that doesn't think people can be controlled with legislation.   You should vote for someone that doesn't think we are the worlds watch dogs.  You should vote for someone that sees the financial mess we're in is a result of crazy spending made possible by printing $$. 

You want to get real?  Pay attention to who you're voting for.   You are voting for someone that is only in it for THEMSELVES under the assumption they're looking out for your best interest.  Talk about being idealistic - You're voting for someone you're HOPING will be better than Obama.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

calling me idealistic is WRONG.   Is it idealistic to rob from the poor to bail out the rich?   Greedy people buying votes is what got us into this problem.

If you want a realistic president, you should vote for someone that doesn't think people can be controlled with legislation.   You should vote for someone that doesn't think we are the worlds watch dogs.  You should vote for someone that sees the financial mess we're in is a result of crazy spending made possible by printing $$. 

You want to get real?  Pay attention to who you're voting for.   You are voting for someone that is only in it for THEMSELVES under the assumption they're looking out for your best interest.  Talk about being idealistic - You're voting for someone you're HOPING will be better than Obama.

This is where the realistic part comes in. I am being realistic at this moment because I know Ron Paul has no chance in the general election. As much as I like most of what he says, and I probably agree with him more than any other candidate, I know he can't win. Now I have to choose between the two candidates that are left, and one of them I agree with more than the other, so that is the one I want to win, and that's who I will vote for. Voting for someone who has no chance is being idealistic. The time to be idealistic is during the primaries, but the general election is the time to be realistic.

[HeinBallz]

It's really all a matter of perception.   Four years ago, the thought of Romney being the nominee was a joke.  What's changed?   Has his policy changed?  How is Ron Paul still a joke?   

It's a joke because you're told by every major media outlet it's a joke.   Aren't you starting to question why?  Why is there so much interest in Romney being the nominee? Especially by people that self admit that they disagree with much of his policy.     How does anyone know that Romney will be better? Especially by a guy that flip flops as much as he does?  I don't trust it.  I didn't trust Obama 4 years ago and I don't trust Romney now.

Your view of thinking is what gave us Obama - and regardless of how this next election turns out - you'll be thinking "President Y didn't fix this mess, so lets vote for X because he'll be better than what we have now."   And what's funnier - is this type of logic dictates that if Paul was the republican candidate - he would have just as good a chance of beating Obama because the only people currently voting for Romney are doing so because....   well at least he's not Obama.

I won't be a part of it. Have the courage vote for the guy that you like - not the guy you're being told to vote for. 


When someone is trying to scare you, they're controlling you with Fear.  Don't be scared into voting for someone just because he's supposedly the only candidate that can defeat "evil"

I'm not trying to scare you into voting for Paul, I'm just questioning why you would vote for someone you see as the lesser of two evils.   It's illogical and IDEALISTIC to expect different results than the last time we voted for the lesser of two evils.

For the record - I appreciate your questioning this subject and I respect your opinion. 

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

It's really all a matter of perception.   Four years ago, the thought of Romney being the nominee was a joke.  What's changed?   Has his policy changed?  How is Ron Paul still a joke?   

It's a joke because you're told by every major media outlet it's a joke.   Aren't you starting to question why?  Why is there so much interest in Romney being the nominee? Especially by people that self admit that they disagree with much of his policy.     How does anyone know that Romney will be better? Especially by a guy that flip flops as much as he does?  I don't trust it.  I didn't trust Obama 4 years ago and I don't trust Romney now.

Your view of thinking is what gave us Obama - and regardless of how this next election turns out - you'll be thinking "President Y didn't fix this mess, so lets vote for X because he'll be better than what we have now."   And what's funnier - is this type of logic dictates that if Paul was the republican candidate - he would have just as good a chance of beating Obama because the only people currently voting for Romney are doing so because....   well at least he's not Obama.

I won't be a part of it. Have the courage vote for the guy that you like - not the guy you're being told to vote for. 


When someone is trying to scare you, they're controlling you with Fear.  Don't be scared into voting for someone just because he's supposedly the only candidate that can defeat "evil"

I'm not trying to scare you into voting for Paul, I'm just questioning why you would vote for someone you see as the lesser of two evils.   It's illogical and IDEALISTIC to expect different results than the last time we voted for the lesser of two evils.

For the record - I appreciate your questioning this subject and I respect your opinion.

I understand your frustration, but Obama can do more destruction in his second term than he did in his first, and I think our way of life can be damaged beyond repair if given another 4 years, so I'm not willing to cast a symbolic vote.

The time to find a new candidate has passed for this next election, so you need to start working on the next.

[HeinBallz]

I just don't expect Romney to be better - that's where we differ.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HeinBallz]

Don't you question why Romney was dirt four years ago, but now he's our only hope?  What promise did he make to obtain that status?  Doesn't that bother you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rage Against the McKee]

Don't you question why Romney was dirt four years ago, but now he's our only hope?  What promise did he make to obtain that status?  Doesn't that bother you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

McCain was a much better candidate than Romney 4 years ago. I can understand that you think Ron Paul would be a better president than Romney, and I agree. The typical republican is terrified of some of the things Ron Paul says, though. He is never going to win a nomination in either political party without making some major changes in his viewpoints, and at that point, he wouldn't be any different than Romney.

[HeinBallz]

Typical republicans that are terrified of Ron Paul would also be terrified of a candidate that favors strict gun control, socialized medicine, and flip flops on abortion.  I disagree that Ron Paul would never get the nomination on the basis that a gun hating baby killing communist is about to get the nod.

I think what you're trying to say is the establishment is terrified of Ron Paul.  Actual republican voters would love the crap out of him if they would stop listening to fox news/Sean hannity/rush limbaugh/CNN/etc. and actually listen to Ron Paul.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HeinBallz]

And Ron Paul's people are currently exposing how corrupt the establishment is.  Hence the coming revolution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I just don't expect Romney to be better - that's where we differ.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe you can take some comfort in knowing that Ron Paul would accomplish very little of his agenda if he was elected.

[HeinBallz]

That's a gigantic pile of bullshit.  Are you telling me he wouldn't be able to pull American troops out of the 150 countries we're currently occupying- including the over 120,000 troops between Germany Japan & Korea (yep 120,000 is more than what's in Afghanistan - you know - an actual war zone). He wouldn't be able to prevent jumping into Israel's war with Iran? He would absolutely positively 100% stop Obama care?  He wouldn't raise awareness and provide a bit more transparency of the fed? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

That's a gigantic pile of bullshit.  Are you telling me he wouldn't be able to pull American troops out of the 150 countries we're currently occupying- including the over 120,000 troops between Germany Japan & Korea (yep 120,000 is more than what's in Afghanistan - you know - an actual war zone). He wouldn't be able to prevent jumping into Israel's war with Iran? He would absolutely positively 100% stop Obama care?  He wouldn't raise awareness and provide a bit more transparency of the fed? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, that' what I'm saying. Obama couldn't even close Gitmo. There could be a slow closing of a few bases here and there, but the idea of a wholesale closure of all non-USA bases is what gave him his "crazy" persona.

Stopping Obamacare is part of the republican platform, so yes, as would Romney.

As president, he would be slapped in the face with knowledge not even privy to a senator of 20 years. 

[HeinBallz]

Presidents pull troops all the time - no one said he had to close a base.  Its even easier to do in non war zones. Do we really need 50,000 troops in Germany? Comparing gitmo to this is ridiculous.

I'll believe the former Massachusetts governor who created "Romneycare" will repeal Obamacare when I see it.  He's a liar and I don't see how you decide to believe him on this.

The fed.  It's really anyone's guess if w could get anything done here but I'll state that he's actually building his campaign on allowing for competition among currency and auditing the fed. Not ending the fed and going to a gold standard like every one claims.  He knows he can't go to a gold standard or end the fed and he's admitted it publicly.  He  has stated that his goal is to build awareness to how inflation is eliminating the middle class and close the loop holes to how the Feds operations are regulated.  His statements have always been that US paper $$ will some day die unless it's tied to some sort of commodity. If you ask me, I'd say it's speculation as it depends on so many variables that no one has control over.  But hyper-inflation certainly doesn't help the US dollar any.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rage Against the McKee]

That's a gigantic pile of bullshit.  Are you telling me he wouldn't be able to pull American troops out of the 150 countries we're currently occupying- including the over 120,000 troops between Germany Japan & Korea (yep 120,000 is more than what's in Afghanistan - you know - an actual war zone). He wouldn't be able to prevent jumping into Israel's war with Iran? He would absolutely positively 100% stop Obama care?  He wouldn't raise awareness and provide a bit more transparency of the fed? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ron Paul's foreign policy is THE reason republicans don't like him. Most republicans are scared to death of foreigners and fall more in line with Rick Santorum than Ron Paul. He sunk any chance he had of getting the nomination when he said that he's fine with Iran pursuing a nuclear weapon.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

That's a gigantic pile of bullshit.  Are you telling me he wouldn't be able to pull American troops out of the 150 countries we're currently occupying- including the over 120,000 troops between Germany Japan & Korea (yep 120,000 is more than what's in Afghanistan - you know - an actual war zone). He wouldn't be able to prevent jumping into Israel's war with Iran? He would absolutely positively 100% stop Obama care?  He wouldn't raise awareness and provide a bit more transparency of the fed? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ron Paul's foreign policy is THE reason republicans don't like him. Most republicans are scared to death of foreigners and fall more in line with Rick Santorum than Ron Paul. He sunk any chance he had of getting the nomination when he said that he's fine with Iran pursuing a nuclear weapon.

Even if true, this isn't why we have bases and troops all over the world. Should the need arise to fight a war, Americans prefer to fight it somewhere else.

[HeinBallz]

Of course people are afraid of his foreign policy - It goes against everything the republican establishment propagates to keep their vested interest alive in well and keep unrest in the middle east.  We've been successfully keeping the American public believing we need to be at war with the middle east since the 90's.  And now we're lead to believe that Iran could be a threat to the U.S. IF they were able to develop into a nuclear power?   Does anyone realize how dumb that sounds?  They would have to establish a space program if not a Navy, THEN figure out a way to send a nuclear device into US territory without detection... IF they are even able to successfully build a nuclear device. Even then - why go to war over this and not go to war with Korea?  They just jumped into the nuclear arms race - but it's hardly in the news any more -  (although I'm not sure they've even had a successfully detonated any nuclear devices yet)  Maybe if North Korea had oil or some other precious element we'd be there....  OH Wait.

Which I'm sure everyone here is smart enough to agree that this is REALLY about oil.  So which is it - fear of terrorism or Oil? Humanitarian effort?  Please.   We're tricking 18 year old kids with patriotism into putting their lives on the lines for oil - Not America - Oil.  A resource that's not nearly as precious as we're lead to believe.  We're more likely to create another Timothy McVeigh than we are another terrorist plot in the U.S. and even less likely be attacked by an Iranian nuclear device.   But I agree, Ron Paul is crazy because he sees the billions of dollars in tax money we're spending on pointless wars over oil and oh yeah, pick up a couple of contracts to rebuild the middle east after we blow the crap out of it.   We - the middle class - are being raped over this several times over.   We're paying premium prices on gas - We're buying it with a weakened currency due to debt & inflation (partly because of wasteful military spending) AND we're funding this war with our tax dollars.   We're triple mumped and lapping it up because Rush Limbaugh & Michael Savage says we have to help out Israel even if they didn't ask us to - because they're our allies and "It's the right thing to do!"  And Oh yeah, Ad Anti-Semite to the list because Ron Paul doesn't care about Isreal!   What a JERK!

And having troops all over the world...   Let me get this straight.  We have 50,000 troops stationed in Germany so that we can get to war "quicker" if we need to?   News flash dumb crap.  We ARE in a rough ridin' war.   Are we going to fight terrorism in Germany?   What?   Do you realize how Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) that sounds?   How does having troops in Japan & Germany make Americans any safer?  Not to mention, I'm sure most of you have lived in Manhattan at least a couple of years, right?   You know Riley Rats?  Yeah.  That's what's representing the United States to the world.  No wonder we're thought of as pig headed, arrogant, douchebags.   Not that our entire military is full of them - but it only takes one to make an impression.  Every time an army brat hops off base to rape a local, we've created another terrorist.   But when someone stands on a stage and talks about "blow-back" He's an unpatriotic Loon.

But whatever, I'm sure we're much safer having our Military spread to the farthest reaches possible - That's what the Romans did anyhow. 

[HeinBallz]

Maybe we can get a military base on Mars!  Wouldn't that be fun!

All it would take is for Boeing to get contracted to build the next space exploration vehicle (if NASA ever gets back up and running) and Boeing's CEO can start propagating martian civil unrest that threatens the democracy of the universe... OH NO!


 

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Ron Paul's foreign policy is THE reason republicans don't like him. Most republicans are scared to death of foreigners and fall more in line with Rick Santorum than Ron Paul. He sunk any chance he had of getting the nomination when he said that he's fine with Iran pursuing a nuclear weapon.

 

What on earth?  Only the most naive butthurt little lib minions say stuff like this.  So sad, they try so hard to not let their bigotry reveal itself that they end up being little bigots themselves.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Ron Paul's foreign policy is THE reason republicans don't like him. Most republicans are scared to death of foreigners and fall more in line with Rick Santorum than Ron Paul. He sunk any chance he had of getting the nomination when he said that he's fine with Iran pursuing a nuclear weapon.

 

What on earth?  Only the most naive butthurt little lib minions say stuff like this.  So sad, they try so hard to not let their bigotry reveal itself that they end up being little bigots themselves.

Well, assuming our candidates are representative of their party at large, we have:

Mitt Romney: Not really afraid of foreigners, but he indicates to his voters that he is because he believes that most republicans are.

Ron Paul: Not afraid of foreigners

Newt Gingrich: Somewhat scared of foreigners

Rick Santorum: Scared shitless of anybody who doesn't speak English as a first language

Rick Perry: Not afraid of foreigners

Jon Huntsman: Not afraid

Michelle Bachman: Terrified

Gary Johnson: Not afraid

Herman Cain: somewhat scared

Tim Pawlenty: Aw, shucks!

I was wrong. Most republicans aren't really afraid of foreigners, but the ones who are get a lot of press.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I was wrong. Most republicans aren't really afraid of foreigners.

This would have sufficed.  Still ignorant and misleading, but whatev, baby steps

[kstatefreak42]

Heinzballz is taking people to flight school.

[sonofdaxjones]

Oh, and I voted AGAINST amendment one.

 

[Mr Bread]

The threat of voter fraud is very real- especially in non-presidential election years (NPEY's). In those years, voter turnout is less than 38%. To win, a candidate needs 19% of the voters to vote for him/her. Watch how candidates work special interest groups in NPEY's. They will promise crazy things to small groups in order to get the 19% they need. People that are involved in special interest groups would tend to vote at a higher percentage of those not involved in a special interest group (I have not looked up to verify, but the logic certainly would indicate this to be true).
If only 38% of voters turn out, you could do what this guy at the beginning of this thread did and have a greater than 60% chance of not getting your vote (or votes) thrown out.
If everybody would exercise their right to vote, it would make voter fraud a little tougher. On the other hand, if you don't care enough to vote, then you are a dumbass and should leave the country.

yeah see the one problem is that the first 1/2 of your post isn't anything to do with voter fraud.  Its all American politics. 

The second half is yet another counter factual argument.  There is no statistically significant evidence of voter fraud in the US.  At the point the tea party ass hats realize that everything after that is a counter argument where we are attempting to compare a supposed risk to our electoral process to known issues of voter fraud in other places.  The problem is that in those other places the democratic institutions are not embedded into the fabric of the process of the elections.

The first half of the post simply points out that very few people vote and that it only takes 19% of the voters to get a win in NPEY's. I was assuming that the reader would then see that voter fraud doesn't have to be over millions of votes in order to be successful...it just has to be enough for a candidate to get to 19%. I wasn't trying to compare us to "other places." Thanks for bringing up tea party ass hats, because it was obviously what I was referring to.?

Dude, you seem wound a little tight. My post had nothing to do with political parties or with other places. I did refer to special interest groups, but those groups are on any and every side of the isle.

It's okay.  His response to you was mostly total rough ridin' nonsense and he clearly doesn't understand the term counterfactual.  This is what he's actually doing everytime he has labled something counterfactual in this thread:

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.