Good Reasons not to vote for Romney

reply to post by 0zzymand0s


No confidence in the third party options, either? They do exist, you know. History has proven them tremendously useful, in fact -- and the two parties know that, which is why they continue to enact arbitrary ballot access laws and requirements each year (not counting frivolous lawsuits and outright voter and volunteer intimidation, which is extremely common contrary to what you might think and has a significant impact).

We can thank third party presidential campaigns for ending slavery, obtaining women's right to vote, child labor laws, reduced work hours, social security and much more. All without winning a single election. How many people know that? If more people realized third party votes aren't worthless, the two party duopoly would be in some serious trouble!

There is a third party candidate for both sides of the political spectrum. Green Party (left) candidate Jill Stein and Libertarian (right) candidate Gary Johnson. We desperately need a third party revolution in this country. If we can't vote our conscience, we do not have a democracy.

reply to post by TheTardis

Dear TheTardis,

Apparently I was misunderstood by more than one person. What I meant was the death of the country, the destruction of the US, will occur in four years under Obama. Romney could stretch it out to eight.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Synergy23


I admire your passion, but as you pointed out -- none of these "third party" candidates have ever won a single election. They are marginalized in the media, scoffed at and made fun of.

But a massive coordinated vote of "no confidence" is -- in my opinion -- more than a vote against the major parties. It is an indictment of the system itself; the parties, the politics, the media coverage, the hopeless cause of the "third parties," and so on.

Star for you, but I do not believe we can solve this problem by adding to the losing column by inches or degrees.

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
reply to post by Synergy23

 

I admire your passion, but as you pointed out -- none of these "third party" candidates have ever won a single election. They are marginalized in the media, scoffed at and made fun of.

Actually, Abraham Lincoln was a third party candidate. The Republican party was brand new. First came the Liberty Party, followed by the Free Soil Party who both advocated the end to slavery. When the Republican Party was formed, the Free Soil Party dissolved because the Republican Party took on its platform. The main two parties of that century were the Democrats and the Whigs.

As for not winning a single election (aside from Lincoln) I just demonstrated how it *didn't even matter.* They succeeded in their purpose. They didn't have to be elected to office to force the change they were advocating.

And what's this reliance on media? There is a lot that is marginalized in the media that is valuable. We're talking about a set of news organizations that think Lindsay Lohan is newsworthy! They're scoffed and made fun of because they threaten the very corporations that are financing each and every MSM company.

But a massive coordinated vote of "no confidence" is -- in my opinion -- more than a vote against the major parties. It is an indictment of the system itself; the parties, the politics, the media coverage, the hopeless cause of the "third parties," and so on.

Star for you, but I do not believe we can solve this problem by adding to the losing column by inches or degrees.

Third parties have a history of major success. I already proved they are not "hopeless." No confidence votes wouldn't be paid attention to. Polls have already shown for years that the great majority of Americans have no confidence in their government. It wouldn't change anything. It would be a victory for the financial elite for us to wave the white flag and say we give up.

reply to post by TheTardis


Yeah.. that's likely.
You really believe that garbage you are spitting?

It makes no difference if it is Obama or Romney. None.
I am going to vote Ron Paul, and if it comes down to Obama or Romney I will pray Obama gets it so the liberty movement as another chance in four years rather than having to go up against a sitting president again in four years.

See you are the one trapped into a certain type of thinking on this. I know what I want to happen and I am working for it.

reply to post by charles1952


So you believe in the same ridiculous idea that that guy is buying?

Anyone that thinks there will be any difference between where America stands 4 years after Obama or 4 years after Romney and some loony denialist whackjobs.

The country will be in the same place regardless of which of them get it, let's not lock ourselves into having Mitt for 8 years. I mean.. NO ONE supports Mitt. NO ONE wants Mitt. American's are now chicken#s that tuck their balls away and vote forever for the other guy.
It's pathetic.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

Well, of course I could easily be wrong. You make a flamboyant and passionate, if not very persuasive, argument.

I think Obama will take actions opposed to the will of Congress and the people. These actions will weaken the US militarily, economically, and dilomatically. I further believe that Romney will take different actions which will result in the US losing it's power, strength, and influence, a little more slowly.

If you are so certain that no one wants Mitt, then you don't have to worry about the election, Obama is a guaranteed winner. Feel free to plan for four years from now, with a liberty or freedom party. I may very well join you. Besides, if the Paul people are still around with four extra years to organize, and Romney turns out to be no good, they should be able to replace him in 2016

Although I would like a little warmer welcome to your party than being called a loony denialist whackjob and chicken excrement.

reply to post by charles1952


Oh it's very persuasive, it's undeniable. The only one that doesn't think it's persuasive is the one that's not willing to do the leg work to see for themselves. The idea that these two people might be set to run the country in the exact same way should persaude anyone with ears to open up and take a peek around. What is flamboyant about the truth? the fact that it's uncommon or that YOU just don't see it often. Those are generally the reason people deem things flamboyant.

reply to post by benrl


I so Totally agree....People should be asking why people like Mitt, and Obama want the Job anyway, I would never vote for someone that has no Honest reason for wanting it other then to make more money or control people. I am voting my Conscience as well cause chances are Dr Paul will lose, But he has my Vote, my impression is he believes in this nation and truly wants to fix it, sometimes leadership positions are best held by people that do not want them but do them cause it's the right thing to do. ya hes not perfect but really.....who is? It doesn't seem like he's running for the power or control, i could be wrong but he is consistent all we can do is ask they they listen to us and try to make things better. not buy a house so big they need a yearly pay raise to afford another maid or some vacation the average joe could only dream about.

People need to starting being Honest with themselves. we hold the power to this government if only more were educated in its use so this beast can once again be brought under control for the good of the people, not their destruction and enslavement of the rest of the world.


thanks for reading my rant! I wish you all well and have a great day!!.