It it just me?

[Jaskalas]

Why should some one vote for a candidate who's party doesn't even have any congressmen?

Because you have to start somewhere.

Why get out of bed in the morning, you haven't even showered or brushed your teeth yet. You'd look like a total monster.

 

[rudeguy]

Herman Cain was the best candidate. I was mad when he dropped out.

I was looking forward to voting for the first black president.

 

[shortylickens]

I like any libertarian. Johnson seems as good as all the others.

 

[Agent11]

Because you have to start somewhere.

Why get out of bed in the morning, you haven't even showered or brushed your teeth yet. You'd look like a total monster.

Why not start with congressmen??

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Just you. You asked for it, you know.

Personally, I liked Jon Huntsman.

I thought he was the least social conservative of them all?

 

[Moonbeam]

I thought he was the least social conservative of them all?

Unfortunately he could think. For the modern Republican conservative, that's a disqualifier right there.

 

[mafia]

Why not start with congressmen??

GJ was a Republican most of his political career.

 

[Franz316]

The main problem I see is that the solution to many of our problems is eliminating and/or radically reforming the same money interests which get our leaders elected. Those same leaders hence have no incentive or means to reform anything. That is why we never see any real improvement. It is a paralyzing paradox that really only has one solution and in time we may reach it.

 

[mafia]

On a side note, a lot of lurkers are GJ supporters.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Unfortunately he could think. For the modern Republican conservative, that's a disqualifier right there.

Yeah, but i thought it was strange that someone like cybrsage who is so extremely socially conservative that it practically oozes out of his ears would like someone like Jon Huntsman.

Or is cybrsage just defending the social conservatives because he has to tow the current party line and change his beliefs and opinions depending on who is the current representative of that party?

 

[CycloWizard]

I know. You are a good man which is why I do what I can to make you better for free. I have broad shoulders and you are no burden to me. But you are a judgmental asshole and I want to free you from that. It's not your aim I disagree with but your methodology. I would imagine I've paid more in taxes than you have and I don't want it wasted either. From what I can gather from the factual record the country prospers best under Democrats and only a Democrat or a Republican will win. I have also wasted many a vote on third party candidates and in all that time none of them ever won. If you're not a idiot you can wake up from your dreams and deal with what is in front of your face. When you talk to me you are talking to the visions that appear on the paper bag you're wearing. You are a program with an execute button. You need to break free. You understand that the conservative mind needs closure and certainty, that it is motivated by denying pain, that moral rectitude is requisite for the conservative ego......not a good place to seek truth from.

It's ironic that you accuse me of seeking closure and certainty in the same post as telling me that you'll vote for someone simply because you think you have some certainty regarding how they will perform their job. I have no clue how good of a president this Johnson character would be. I will vote for him simply because I believe in certain core principles, including mathematics, that both Democrats and Republicans disregard. The only certainty I have in the coming election is that the next Joker-in-Chief will not subscribe to reason, rationality, and mathematics and therefore will cause huge, long-term problems. All I need to do to know that is listen to their campaign promises and "debate" prattle. Obama claims to be serious about reducing the deficit by raising taxes without touching spending; he says will create jobs while raising taxes. Romney claims to be serious about cutting spending and taxes while improving employment. Neither of those sets of promises holds muster based on any rational assessment (economic, accounting, or otherwise). You accuse me of being a program which I take as a compliment because it means I function in a rational manner according to logical principles. You intended it as an insult because you don't understand those principles that you claim to champion. I understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch. If you honestly want to fix things, then all you have to do is look at the math of the various proposals to see that those by Obama and Romney do not add up. You therefore cannot simultaneously support either of them while claiming rationality as a basis. Your complete lack of rationality is summed up nicely in the tautology of your subsequent post:

Blah blah blah. Get him to 30% in the polls. I don't pay him the slightest mind because he has no chance. It's a waste of time. I have nothing against his stand on things because I have no need to. He could be God but he doesn't have a chance. And while your at it, call a constitutional convention and get money and corporations out of politics. Get publicly financed campaigns that include third parties in the debates. Get off your ass and get busy. You are punching at shadows and wallowing in grief. Do something or shut the fuck up.

Third-party candidates have no chance in the election because people believe they have no chance in the election. If you had real rational principles rather than irrational rhetoric, you would see the absurdity of your position.

 

[Agent11]

We have 4 years of steady recovery with Obama. He is the conservative choice atm.

 

[airdata]

People aren't talking about him because there is a conspiracy to prevent anybody aside from 2 approved democrat & republican candidates from being presented as viable candidates to the general public.

You're given the false concept of having a choice when really there is none since both guys are backed by the same interests.

Guys like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson don't serve those interests and therefore they get no media spot light and stand very little chance of winning an election.

 

[Farang]

People aren't talking about him because there is a conspiracy to prevent anybody aside from 2 approved democrat & republican candidates from being presented as viable candidates to the general public.

You're given the false concept of having a choice when really there is none since both guys are backed by the same interests.

Guys like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson don't serve those interests and therefore they get no media spot light and stand very little chance of winning an election.

It's not a conspiracy, it's the logical result of our election system. There are a million different ways to run an election, some of which encourage 3rd parties and some of which do not. Ours most definitely does not.

That doesn't make it bad, necessarily. Hitler came to power in a system that was more accessible to third parties--and is an example of how the weakness of these systems can be they allow radicals to take power.

Another example I read about recently was Abraham Lincoln, running for Senate, was something like 2 votes short of a majority (in the state legislature, which elected U.S. senators) and had a plurality, but since he couldn't get a majority he ceded the election to some guy who had like 4-5 votes out of 100.

 

[airdata]

But, it is a conpiracy because people actively conspire in order to not talk about certain people in the media... which in turn makes people think there's only x number of choices.

 

[Farang]

But, it is a conpiracy because people actively conspire in order to not talk about certain people in the media... which in turn makes people think there's only x number of choices.

I disagree, and think you have your cause and effect mixed up. The election system is what marginalizes third parties, and as a result they get little support and stand little chance at election. It isn't the media's job to prop up any person who says 'I'm running for President,' it is their job to cover news--for example, a certain person starts gathering a large following while running for President.

If Gary Johnson was able to get 15,000 people to a rally in Columbus, Ohio, he'd be on the evening news.

 

[airdata]

It's not up for debate Farang. This has been well documented w\ the Ron Paul media blackout. The media pushes certain people and black balls others.

Ron Paul had tons of support in the primaries. Other candidates stole his talking points because his ideas were good and then pretended he was just a crazy old man. He was the only candidate talking about real issues and not bullshit like abortion or simple party rhetoric.

He was nearly blacked out completely in the media. And in instances where he was mentioned, they did so in a manner to suggest he was just nuts. Mission accomplished, right?


If the media didn't present just 2 people, it'd be alot different.

 

[Farang]

It's not up for debate Farang.

I wish you would've told me that before I tried debating it