Let's Make a CFC-OT US Presidential Election Map 2012!

[bhsup]

To each their own. I'm personally fine with him.

 

[AlpsStranger]

To each their own. I'm personally fine with him.

No offense, but so is every other "ABO." It's not like you have a choice if that's your priority.

 

[GhostWriter16]

No offense, but so is every other "ABO." It's not like you have a choice if that's your priority.

Actually, I think VR was supporting Mitt back in 2008....

I'm not the type where every issue has to line up for me to vote for someone, but Romney doesn't even come close. Obama is even worse, true, but its kind of like saying that its worse to get shot in the head than get shot in the leg. I mean, its true, but

I'd vote for Ron Paul if I could. If I were in a state that Virgil Goode had a real chance to screw up Romney, I might go that way.

But, guys, vote for ANYONE other than the big two

 

[AlpsStranger]

Well, I'm an "ABAR" so I really don't have a choice either. Takes one to know one

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well, I'm an "ABAR" so I really don't have a choice either. Takes one to know one

Anyone but a Republican?

Would you really take Obama over Ron Paul?

 

[AlpsStranger]

Anyone but a Republican?

As a non-religious person I don't have a choice. When people barely stop short of demonizing you it tends to make you learn quickly. My father, mother, and even siblings are also irreligious so this isn't a case of childish rebellion.

I've got family to look out for and I don't feel safe with the Republicans. Do they really even want my vote?

Would you really take Obama over Ron Paul?

Ron Paul would simply have the state marginalize me instead of the federal government. Not a really big improvement.

That said, I would do better than the Democrats if I could.

 

[GhostWriter16]

As a non-religious person I don't have a choice. When people barely stop short of demonizing you it tends to make you learn quickly. My father, mother, and even siblings are also irreligious so this isn't a case of childish rebellion.

Woah! I didn't throw any accusations

I've got family to look out for and I don't feel safe with the Republicans. Do they really even want my vote?

I think they are doing the best job they can at getting just about everyone ticked off at them. I mean, if they'd picked Santorum they'd have the "Traditionals" on their side and if they picked Paul they'd have the "Libertarians" on their side, but it feels like everyone, or at least, most conservative people, don't seem to like Romney very much.

He's lied through his teeth so often, ugh, I would have taken just about any other Republican, heck, I'd have taken Santorum over this....

Ron Paul would simply have the state marginalize me instead of the federal government. Not a really big improvement.

Define "Marginalize you", what does that even mean?

That said, I would do better than the Democrats if I could.

Easy, vote Gary Johnson, since Paul isn't really an official candidate anymore

He even supports gay marriage. Shows how far my standards have fallen

 

[AlpsStranger]

Woah! I didn't throw any accusations

I didn't say you demonized me. I was talking about the official GOP.

I think they are doing the best job they can at getting just about everyone ticked off at them. I mean, if they'd picked Santorum they'd have the "Traditionals" on their side and if they picked Paul they'd have the "Libertarians" on their side, but it feels like everyone, or at least, most conservative people, don't seem to like Romney very much.

Romney is something else alright. Although the "Romney vs. Romney" genre on YouTube is undeniably amusing. Say what you want about "evolving positions," but Romney seems to have evolved a camouflage response.

He's lied through his teeth so often, ugh, I would have taken just about any other Republican, heck, I'd have taken Santorum over this....

You do what you've gotta do.

Define "Marginalize you", what does that even mean?

Like I should be an immigrant in my own country. That's the best way I can describe the feeling I get.

Easy, vote Gary Johnson, since Paul isn't really an official candidate anymore

It's a cliche by now, but I don't intend to throw away my vote. I vote to sway the result, not for any kind of high-minded principal.

He even supports gay marriage. Shows how far my standards have fallen

 

[bhsup]

No offense, but so is every other "ABO." It's not like you have a choice if that's your priority.

I wrote in Romney because I refused to vote for McCain in 2008 and thought Romney was an outstanding alternative (fyi I wrote in Brownback for Veep). I have as much disdain for "ABOers" as I did for "ABBers" in 2004. I support Romney because I believe him to be an outstanding candidate and someone who will make an oustanding President.

P.S. - GhostWriter, you can vote for Ron Paul. Surely your State has a spot for write-in candidates, yes? One always has a choice.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I wrote in Romney because I refused to vote for McCain in 2008 and thought Romney was an outstanding alternative (fyi I wrote in Brownback for Veep). I have as much disdain for "ABOers" as I did for "ABBers" in 2004. I support Romney because I believe him to be an outstanding candidate and someone who will make an oustanding President.

In that case I apologize.

 

[bhsup]

Pfft. Don't apologize. Though if you really feel bad and want to make amends...

STAND WITH MITT!

 

[Algeroth]

The key here is the definition of the word conservative--most political scientist/historian types recognize conservatism as a desire to preserve the status quo and thus to make minimal change to society. The kind of reforms being suggested by the "conservative" party--rolling back progressive taxation, rolling back the health care legislation, etc. cannot be classified as conservative and are reactionary.

What you describe is British conservatism - till Thatcher destroyed it. Conservatism on the Continent always had a reactionary streak.

BTW, I once read that both the USA dominant parties are mutated strains of European liberalism, each one approaching issues from different angle. I guess that you could describe GOP in such way, but only before it decided to adopt the religious right in seventies.

 

[Cutlass]

The is absolutely no way that the federal government can help and expand the economy of every region on the country at once. By default, providing help to one sector or region has an adverse impact on another. For instance, you can't promote the U.S. based industry without placing regulations that have an adverse affect on economic sectors that rely on exporting or importing cheaper products.
And expanding personal liberty not as clear cut as you make it sound. In regions where conservative values abound are adversely affected by promoting nation wide liberal policies just as nation wide conservative one do the same thing to liberal values. Having each state protect those values and rights that are important to their population is the best way to promote liberty.

Sorry I missed seeing this yesterday.

The federal government has always helped expand the economy. Always, that is, except when the states rights people were sufficiently dominant so that the feds did nothing. If you allow the feds to work the economy will grow faster. American history from day one has been a public-private partnership. Now that matters far more in the 20th and 21st century than it does in the 18th, that is true. But in no sense can you separate the prosperity of the nation from the actions of the feds. And if it does not help every region equally, it still does in fact help the whole of the people. But that does not mean most policies actively harm any region. Policies that make the nation richer may leave some behind, but economics always does that. Things just can't stay the same for everyone.

Personal liberty really in fact is that clear cut. Expansions of personal liberty are pretty much a universal good. Those "conservative values" that blocked personal liberty should be eliminated. You don't have the right to do that to people. It is not an "adverse affect" to promote liberty over a tyranny of a local majority.

 

[AlpsStranger]

STAND WITH MITT!

Not going to happen

I don't have any exceptional love for Obama, but under the current circumstances I would crawl the rest of the way to the polls even if a passing bus ripped my legs off on the way. I'm in a swing state to boot so it's not like my vote wouldn't count.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

P.S. - GhostWriter, you can vote for Ron Paul. Surely your State has a spot for write-in candidates, yes? One always has a choice.

I don't know about New York, but plenty of states place restrictions on Write-Ins that make them essentially useless.

In Georgia, write-ins are allowed in the general election (not in primaries), but they are not counted at all unless they are for candidates who filed the proper paperwork with the secretary of state's office by a certain date. They don't even record them as "other," and they don't seem to publish any data on spoiled ballots, so there is no way to register a protest vote. I always write someone in rather than supporting any candidate who is running unopposed, but the official results still claim that the voters support them unanimously.

Ron Paul does not seem to have any intention of running as an independent, even as a write-in, so voting for him here could do no good. If I recall correctly candidates still have a rather limited time to file and need to collect a fair number of signatures (which cannot include anyone who has signed petitions supporting another candidate, or even voted in either partisan primary) even to be a write-in option (although actual ballot access requires more signatures, of course). We may even be one of those states that has sore loser laws that make it illegal for candidates who ran in a partisan primary to then run in the general election unless they win that party's nomination. (The reason why Gary Johnson pulled out of the Republican race as soon as he did was so that those states would not ban him from running as a Libertarian.)

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

@ ghost, do you like Ryan? I think he's a good guy.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I wrote in Romney because I refused to vote for McCain in 2008 and thought Romney was an outstanding alternative (fyi I wrote in Brownback for Veep). I have as much disdain for "ABOers" as I did for "ABBers" in 2004. I support Romney because I believe him to be an outstanding candidate and someone who will make an oustanding President.

P.S. - GhostWriter, you can vote for Ron Paul. Surely your State has a spot for write-in candidates, yes? One always has a choice.

I'm 17 so I can't vote

If I could, I'd be writing him in or voting for Gary Johnson. I'm in New York so it wouldn't matter anyways (Which does mean I would still vote if I could, but would make zero qualms whatsoever about a "Protest vote") but the whole conversation was a theoretical if I could vote.

@ ghost, do you like Ryan? I think he's a good guy.

I don't know anything about him, but the vice president doesn't matter much unless someone decides to kill Romney, and I'm not praying for that.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

http://www.mittromney.com/issues

What specifically stands out as so bad to you?

Social Security:

President Obama has had three years in office ....

Afghanistan/Pakistan
Africa
Energy
Israel

Obama's Failure[/big font]


Just the few pages on issues I browsed through. Campaign on your own strength.

(For comparison I also check the Bamster's site on the issues. Not found a mention yet. Save for a link on the bottom of the page to Romney Economics.

Disclaimer: Spent 5 minutes randomly clicking through the issue part of the sites.

edit: Oh, almost forgot.

Dishonest graphic is dishonest:


I hope I don't have to explain why.

 

[downtown]

Can we go back to talking about the map, instead of another long winded thread about Dommy's particularly flavor of conservatisim?

 

[Dreadnought]

@GhostWriter.

You'll grow out of this rebellious mindset eventually.