CELTICEMPIRE

I like the thought of getting into politics as well if I can. I'll definitely vote for you if you're anywhere near me, just tell me who you really are if you ever run for anything that may be relevant You might want to run for the GOP, you are right. The thought nauseates me even more than joining the LP even with the "Choice" issues, but you've got to do what you've got to do.

Ron Paul has ran for President for the GOP, Libertarians, and constitutionalists, so it doesn't ultimately matter too much what party you are. Although I'm not endorsing any Republicans other than the Pauls in 2012 out of principle.

Just wondering (Unrelated question) I know you ultimately decided that you were going to register as Libertarian ASAP. How much did the precense of pro-choice ideas in the platform bother you? That's literally the only thing that bothers me about joining the party. On the other hand, I pretty much disagree with the Constitutionalists on the REST of the "Enforcing Morality" stuff.

I'll probably end up joining the LP anyways, but I'm curious to what extent that one aspect of its platform bothered you.

True. That may work. Are there any fiftychatters in the running this year?

Seriously? Why do you think that?

In terms of sheer numbers game, the libs win. Considering there are two liberal parties and two conservative parties, the odds kinda suck right now.

Of course, the so called "Moderate" Republicans haven't gained much traction, but that still means they aren't voting for us. And since most conservatives are more "Moderate" on here they'll probably also go there.

An overton window technique that could work is to move to the center and throw out the moderate Republicans as the radicals (And thus pretend that they were lying) but I don't know if it would work.

Have any efforts been made to get the Moderate Republicans to back us?

And one less conservative party

What parties are out there right now?

This is indeed a crappy election. Fair enough, take a break

(You still have to campaign for the CFC one though.)

I'm just too much addicted to politics even when it does not matter

Apparently even a few of the GOP electors agree with us http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Romney-Electors/2012/09/13/id/451656

What if we see some faithless electors this year?;)

It doesn't. If you could vote, would you vote for someone or not at all? (I'd certainly vote for Johnson BTW, I agree with him 93% of the time, which is far more than Virgil Goode's 71%.)

You should look at my thread about a GOP electoral college member quitting because if she had stayed, she would have defied the party and voted for Dr. Paul. Its pretty awesome

I think that last part is a myth. People don't want to do them because they are currently paying far, far less than minimum wage.

Have you decided who you're supporting in 2012 yet?

Its completely possible to keep those of them that are in Mexico out. Easy. Station soldiers on the border. And far cheaper than the money they are costing us.

Yeah, they do want to improve their lives. Doesn't give them a right to come here illegally. They also are taking jobs away.

We can take illegal immigration seriously without outright hunting people down, which won't work.

My results

The stem cell question was a bit whacked. There was no response that fitted me. I wanted to say that it should be permitted for non-fetal cells, prohibited for fetal cells, and for any such research that is allowed to be left to the private sector. I couldn't get the answer I wanted, so I just marked it as "Least Important."

If you look at Mitt Romney's positons, they admit that he supports Obamacare

My positions are pretty radical these days. I don't necessarily fit anywhere. I'm surprised they even put me 64% with Mitt. It should be less.

The wall is too expensive, I agree. We shouldn't make it even easier for those who break the law to obtain citizenship though. If we do catch them here they should still be deported. Also, we should pull our military out of all of the foreign countries we have them in (South Korea is an exception) and then put enough troops on the Mexican border that it will be difficult or impossible to illegally immigrate.

And still, why claim to be 101?

I'm going to take ISideWith again. I wonder if my scores will be any different than last time. I actually took a political test recently that solely had issues of Mitt Romney and Obama and tried to figure out who you agreed with more (It was sort of a stupid test since one or the other candidate agreed with every proposition, so there was no legitimate, Ron Paul style responses) and I ended up closer to Obama

The second paragraph- The VERY rich really only pay 15% anyways with the capital gains taxes being much, much lower than they are on people who obtain income without capital gains. So I agree with you that the capital gains taxes should not go any lower, at least not now. The debt is never going to get paid though. Too many fiscally irresponsbible people in the government.

That said, there are too many OTHER taxes. The sales tax, for instance, is REGRESSIVE. It should not exist (I don't like FairTax for this reason either, its not fair, its regressive.)

I'd vote against gay marriage as well, but I'd also vote against a constitutional amendment banning (or allowing) gay marriage throughout the country.

Why you claiming to be 101?

As for your Isidewith, you were against extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich? I'm surprised, I would have thought you'd be the type to support the flat tax? FairTax is crap though, its not "Fair" at all, its a regressive tax system, and it seems like the sort of thing Paul Ryan would come up with, rather than the sort of thing Ron Paul would come up with

On gay marriage, who do you believe should decide, the states or the Feds?

You're more pro-illegal immigration than I thought as well I'm not in favor of giving them ANY help in being here, they should be deported becuase they violate our laws. That the law is perhaps unfair is besides the point. Then change the law, but still, they're still breaking the law.

That said, we can't afford any more immigrants until we get unemployment down. Its in the double digits right now. I'm against making it worse.

Vietnam led to the draft, which is a borderline form of slavery. And it was to support an evil dictatorship in the South. I have no shame in saying I would have refused to go fight that war, and I'm not even pacifist. Its against my ethical positions.

My main issue with Korea is that the Congress didn't declare it. It was still to support a dictator, but to my knowledge that one was actually better than the one in NK, rather than worse like SV was compared to NV.

That said, Korea was almost a nightmare because we didn't talk to China at all before we did it. Thus we could NOT fight to eliminate NK, thus making it a standoff. I think it was better for the SK people, but ultimately worse for the American people, that we got involved. I would have been fine with getting involved if we had done it differently.

"Supporting" is different than going to war although we cannot afford to do either. You know Ron Paul would also stay neutral, correct? (Not that you have to agree with him, just saying.)

I honestly don't see why we should have cared to try to stop communism. We weren't really fighting for freedom. We were defending Capitalist dictators against communist ones. Pointless idea.

Korea, admittedly, wasn't as bas as Vietnam. But still.

I don't consider a defense pact the same thing as an "intervention." That said, I'd only support intervention on Israel's behalf if A: They didn't provoke the war and B: They can't win on our own. As for South Sudan, I say let them fight their own civil war, we have bigger things to worry about.

The Korean War was intristically wrong because congress didn't authorize it. And it set the stage for Cold War policy and HUAC. That's what I'm saying about war corrolating with destruction of civil liberties. It took me a long time to accept it, but now that I have, I can never go back. Every single one of our wars post WWII was unconstitutional and wrong.

The NRLC will do what they have to do. Who do you think they are going to support, Obama? Being one issue as they are (Which is fine, they exist because of opposition to abortion, not because of gun rights, the economy, or the Patriot Act), I don't really blame them for not supporting Gary Johnson. I think, logically, its the better choice, and equally good on abortion, but they'd understandbly look bad if they said "The NRLC is endorsing the pro-choice libertarian dude) I'm not as single-issue. If it was someone who was totally pro-life VS totally pro-choice, I MIGHT vote that way (The closest thing is Rick Santorum, he's even better on anti-abortion than Ron Paul is, and worse on everything else, VS Obama) but when it comes to someone who is "pro-life" but wishy-washy, and someone who is "pro-choice: but against Roe v Wade and I like the second guy better on practically every other issue, for me its a no contest. NRLC is entitled. But I don't agree with the endorsement.