19 reasons to vote libertarian, just once.
Take the long-term approach. This is for 2014 and 2016. Voting Libertarian means you help put MANY House and Senate seats in play for 2014 and 2016.
We lament that so few congressional seats are in play; third and fourth parties change that!
Your vote counts MORE if made for a 3rd party candidate. 4% of the vote in just ONE state makes a difference. It could put the U.S. Senate into one party or the other party's hands. Even if it doesn't, it gets the party NOTICED in two years.
Your vote counts MORE when it is used to punish wayward incumbents. Republicans in Congress who wouldn't stop Medicare Part D, McCain-Feingold, and "bridges to nowhere" DESERVE to be punished. Democrats in Congress who wouldn't stop The Patriot Act, Guantanamo, "Don't Ask Don't Tell", Wall Street bailouts, big-bank protections, Social Security theft, and NDA imprisonments DESERVE to be punished (and to have their heads examined). Third parties are here to MAKE wayward politicians lose.
3rd party candidates are almost always more principled public servants than their Republican counterparts. Main party candidates almost always compromise their principles to get elected or stay elected. (In the last 12 years, every Republican Congressman except Ron Paul was a sell-out.) Just once, try someone who is not a proven compromiser.
In the last 24 years, every Republican presidential nominee has been a sell-out. That includes Mitt Romney, who is unprincipled on immigration, on health care, and on abortion. By contrast, Gary Johnson had the principle to govern New Mexico for 8 years using 750 vetoes. This is a man who can and will say "no" to special interests.
Obama isn't about to change things for the better. Romney's proposed changes are only incrementally better.
WE need a RADICAL change.
Voting for the best candidate...gets us BETTER candidates in the future.
Lesser of two evils -- means you just voted for ..."evil"
Make this an election you don't have to say "I regretted my vote". Make this an election where you don;t feel you are deciding between "Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-dum". This is at the state OR federal level. Yes, voting for a faceless, unaccomplished name on line C or D (Libertarian) is BETTER than voting for someone less moral, or more corrupt, or with a proven track record of BAD.
Romney -- will not attempt the radical steps we need. Either he doesn't get it, or (worse) he does but chooses to compromise to gain personal power. That means he's a "career compromiser", so America doesn't benefit.
Romney -- politically he deserves to lose. This electorate can't let "Romneycare" slide. He foisted on Massachusetts a freedom-denying regime for health coverage. He's not apologetic. Romney-care was not an accident. Third parties are there to MAKE wayward politicians lose.
Obama -- his collectivism is repugnant. Individual responsibility makes families better, makes students better, makes communities better, makes the economy better, and makes the nation better. Not even avowed socialist (5-time US Presidential candidate) Eugene Debs stood for dismantling some individual responsibility. And Debs was at least proud of America. Obama keeps apologizing for America. Debs wanted America to stand for something. Obama wants America to just "blend in" to a Euro-cracy.
To the extent you want to eradicate evil, third and fourth party viability DOES THAT.
Bad Republicans take half of us for granted. Keeping a two-party system means Republicans who are statist know you can't go elsewhere (McCain and now Romney are statist Republicans.) Bad Democrats take half of us for granted. Keeping a two-party system means Democrats who violate civil liberties know you can't go elsewhere (Obama has violated more civil liberties than any president of my lifetime, and the recently passed legislation regarding "disloyalty" portends even more.)
Look at the libertarian credentials. If Gary Johnson were the Republican nominee, conservatives would hail him as the best candidate since Ronald Reagan.
Look at the libertarian once again. If Gary Johnson were the Democrat nominee, civil libertarians would hail him as the best candidate since Eugene McCarthy.
Look at the libertarian a 3rd time. If Gary Johnson were the nominee of either party, the "99%ers", independents, and Ron Paul supporters would be ecstatic that they finally had an electable reformer.
Just ONCE, do something politically "wild". It's like the rave you were scared to attend, but this is safer.
Just once, help start something politically important.
Jimmy here is your chance to make a comment without jyst going after a patch user. Lets see if its possible? Just simply reason why s and p downgraded u.s. debt. Thanks sir.
Did you like how I called those swing states exactly as they came out, leaving out only North Carolina which I had called for Romney?
_________________________________________________________ Four responses in a row from Luca. All I asked was where I said WTI is imported. Just tell me which post. You can't because I never said it. What I did get was four responses of you frantically waving your arms to divert everyone's attention again. And now you claim I said my grandfather was a fleet admiral? What the holy Moses are you talking about? You have me confused with someone else.
I didnt say you said anything about fleet admiral. next...i asked you a number if questions. are you afraid to answer? Im explaining my rationale....u never said wti is imported. It was implied in your successon of posts. If i misunderstood ...then im asking you to clarify. But i believe you were speaking about the price of imported oil. Were you not? Easy question to answer- since you speak about opec, dubai and shipping charges. Next i establish that when referring to the price of oil we most likely should use the benchmark..or at least acknowledge that brent can be used as a common understanding of where the price is.... do you agree that brent is the most common reference point? I believe it is.... bottom line: you were speaking about an energy policy whereby we cap import prices. Therefore brent pricing certainly can and should be used. Meaning there is no basis to quote texas oil prices when speaking about oil imports. 2) even if you refuse to admit you were talking about imported oil (whixh would be simply a lie) there is a benchmark price called brent...which i showed was 10 dollars. You told me "oil" hasnt reached 10 dollars since 1973. Pretty clear oil has. Maybe not the oil you had in your mind...but then i refer back to your discussion about imports...and we are right back to not having discussed texas oil.
"u never said wti is imported." Good, glad you finally cleared that up for us. But now you've moved on to a new diversion tactic when you posted, "I didnt say you said anything about fleet admiral. " You didn't say it? What about your post from yesterday: "Saying that you fought in vietnam or have a grandfather who was a fleet admiral etc for the purposes of raising your stature? That is way beyond my frame of acceptablility. but dont just take my view on it---it happens to be a federal crime---so, its pretty widely accepted that pretending to be a soldier when you are not, is very slimey." Here's the link (last post in thread): 1:51 am on Friday, November 9, 2012 http://ridgefield.patch.com/articles/barack-obama-re-elected-president-f6ece546 You clearly said it... and let me say again, you have me confused with someone else. Luca, I don't say this to torment you, but you've got to admit, you are displaying some very bizarre behavior.
Aint gonna happen. The “rich” will be gone before you raise your cudgel. Google searches for “Renounce Citizenship” spike. http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2012/11/20121108_renounce.png
1) I have asked you the same 2-4 questions that you never answer.... is that a diversion? Answer yes. Was oil ever below 10 dollars? yes. 2) the quote of mine is and that is when someone on here pretends to have fought in combat. When you pretend to be a republican--it just baffles me-- its not disturbing in as much as its baffling, and I ask for an explanation. Saying that you fought in vietnam or have a grandfather who was a fleet admiral etc for the purposes of raising your stature? That is way beyond my frame Nice twisting--but I was speaking in generalities about when one does those type of things. Get it? One new question: if admitting things (like I do, and you acknowledge as "good" is something you admire--why is it so elusive? Im fairly certain that anyone who reads these posts (and Im guessing by this time, not many do)--wont think you win, by never acknowledging your own statements? Like I say-- you have a general disrespect for other people's ability to decipher. Waiters, ink cartridge guys etc all are not dumb, and can determine who is the deceptive one. Its up to you to acknowledge you were talking about oil imports and therefore --not about texas oil. If you dont-- thats to your discredit.
and the only thing you are denying is that you never said anything about a fleet admiral? (that was siwanoy btw) Ok--so the other stuff, apparently you admit to doing by virtue of elimination? Weird--that was not my intention, (and i honestly dont care if you change your name on here 25 times a month--it only is for continuity sake--- the idea of a fake name and changing the fake name, is totally unimportant)...your pauld 2 days ago, never now , and maybe sometimes in the future====what you are always is a person who refuses to take responsibility.
BASTA ! STOP!! GO AWAY ! NO ONE wants to read your crap!
you just joined a minute ago?
(you wont answer about mulitple names--so i may as well play this boring game)
If a black man votes for obama , because he is black, is that racist? If a white man votes for romney , because he is white, is that racist? Ok. 96.4% of blacks who voted voted for Obama. now imagine if the white population was as committed to supporting their race as blacks....would that be the type of society you want?
What is best for our country, defined as the vast majority of the citizenry, is what should motivate our political and social action. Not "self interest," not identity politics, but rather solidarity as Americans that we make our future together. Luca you touch on this above but I say self-interest at the expense of the community is unpatriotic and antisocial, not to mention bad for the country our children will inherit. Would you agree?
After you get done responding to Luca maybe you could respond to my questions about how much money is a person allowed to have, and how about houses, how big can they be? And what about those tax rates, how high should they go? I mean where does "your fair share" end? So what's it going to be a "panel" or "czars"
An interesting perspective....in its collective. Do I think self-interest at the expense of the community is unpatriotic; antisocial? I can see that to a degree. I would have to incorporate some understanding of whose self-interest you refer to. In other words, the Mr. Potter type from 'its a wonderful life', would fall under your definiton--and i'd agree there. But , what I find as a growing acceptance , and my annoyance with it, is this concept that if you are poor, you have no accountability to either yourself or your community. A struggling single mother (or father) doing her /his best to juggle the demands of life--should be met with charity and assistance. This is correct in my opinion. But-- the guy who works for all cash, and doesnt pay taxes and gambles away or drinks away his welfare check, is also selfish---but im not sure if that is ever addressed. Our society seems to be attempting to find this person as deserving of sympathy and a handout as the mother--- we have become a country that seems intent on making rich people out to be criminals, and greedy, and undeserving, and those less rich, as the heroes of our country and deserving of our politicians efforts and attention. And these efforts are expanding. You can see it on these blogs-- there is little respect given by liberals to anyone who achieves a modicum of success. In fact there is disdain, envy and snarly remarks. is being self-interested and poor unpatriotic Will?
Sorry, if there was no such thing as race Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would also be out of work. Unemployment is 16% in the black community and is 50% for the 18-25yrs. Why do you think that was the case?
highly idealistic. Sure--something that would be great if it were true. In the mean time, however, racism exists, but only criticized if its white racism. I think a step needed to achieve your goal, Will , is to place some responsibility on blacks , for example, to exhibit less blatant racism. My answer to my question above is--they both would be racist--and it is not the type of society I want.... black racism has its rationale--its founded on the basis of the past--but , the Supreme Court will soon decide on affirmative action in college selection, and i think many people would agree that the best way to address racism, is not to institutionalize it any longer. Diversity is a goal.... racial preference should not exist.