Quantcast

If Ron Paul does not get the nomination at Tampa......

Teri- Oregon 2012/07/19 21:46:43
I'm writing Paul in. I don't care if write ins don't count.
I'm voting for Gary Johnson because he is on all 50 state ballots this year
I'm voting Romney because we need Obama out!
I was never voting Paul, I was always voting Romney.
I was never voting Paul, I was always voting Obama.
I'm voting for another third party candidate.
You!
Add Photos & Videos
What is your second choice?
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • The Bantam Seditioner 2012/07/19 22:16:12 (edited)
    I'm writing Paul in. I don't care if write ins don't count.
    The Bantam Seditioner
    +14
    Actually, if Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination, I may abstain from voting altogether. He was my last hope for anyone actually *changing* the status quo and bringing our freedoms back through the political means.

    If I voted for Obama or Romney, I'd feel like I had blood on my hands. They are both seriously narcissistic individuals - possibly even sociopathic - and I wouldn't trust them to look after my houseplants, let alone my country.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Koma The Ban... 2012/07/20 19:38:35
    Koma
    +2
    I don't want to "send a message to the establishment", I want to kick their a$$es out into the streets.
    We've sent them numerous messages to no avail.
  • T A The Ban... 2012/07/23 02:24:59
  • The Ban... T A 2012/07/23 09:30:20
    The Bantam Seditioner
    +1
    Yeah, Gary Johnson is nowhere near as libertarian as I'd want in a President (if I wanted a President, that is ;D)

    I always promised myself I'd never become one of those libertarians/ancaps who complains about the system yet never votes....but after twp elections in which the indisputably most humble, decent, and least power-hungry man has failed miserably in this system, I think I'm starting to see the non-voters' point.

    I just feel so helpless at this point. I mean, if we can't win in politics, how can we win with education? It's not like the average CNN/FOX/MSNBC viewer has enough braincells to rub together to even begin understanding freedom or the non-aggression principle, let alone begin to live by them.
  • T A The Ban... 2012/07/23 17:33:29 (edited)
    T A
    +1
    (Pardon this ramblefest)

    If anyone has the right to complain it's those who do not contribute to the problem by voting for evil people. The voters are the one's lending legitimacy to it...even those who lose. While we may assign our own fate to the decisions of another (i.e. power of attorney), we cannot legitimately do so on behalf of another.

    I think Paul was pretty good on a federal level, and I even wondered if I would break with non-voting in the hope that he would end the foreign aggressions, However, in the end, he is a statist. He believes that statism is a good thing, just not so much at a national level. However, he would use the military to attack foreign nations if congress declared war. He supports state governments having the right to do many of the things that he doesn't want the federal government to do. While smaller would be better in so many ways and state governments theoretically cannot run a deficit, state power is still immoral at its foundation.

    We are helpless to change it. The winners are chosen in advance so that it matters not if the people vote left or right. Were a Ron Paul or even a full blown anarchist to take office (as an example) they could not accomplish anything as the public unions, corporate and individual welfare recipients would ...



    (Pardon this ramblefest)

    If anyone has the right to complain it's those who do not contribute to the problem by voting for evil people. The voters are the one's lending legitimacy to it...even those who lose. While we may assign our own fate to the decisions of another (i.e. power of attorney), we cannot legitimately do so on behalf of another.

    I think Paul was pretty good on a federal level, and I even wondered if I would break with non-voting in the hope that he would end the foreign aggressions, However, in the end, he is a statist. He believes that statism is a good thing, just not so much at a national level. However, he would use the military to attack foreign nations if congress declared war. He supports state governments having the right to do many of the things that he doesn't want the federal government to do. While smaller would be better in so many ways and state governments theoretically cannot run a deficit, state power is still immoral at its foundation.

    We are helpless to change it. The winners are chosen in advance so that it matters not if the people vote left or right. Were a Ron Paul or even a full blown anarchist to take office (as an example) they could not accomplish anything as the public unions, corporate and individual welfare recipients would cause everything to come to a grinding halt when they stopped receiving their goodies. Congress and the media would then blame the president rather than point out all the grasping hands of the thieves who shut down...everything. From the beginning of the new administration congress would be passing all kinds of laws that would be vetoed and overturned. In the end people would only blame freedom for their troubles. Better that there isn't a libertarian of any flavor (even bland and statist as Johnson or Barr) to take the blame for the crimes of the Republicrats. Not even rigorous libertarian policies could effect a "salvation" of this system. The only real choice is to choose anarchism before it's forced on us. Since people still foolishly believe in electoral politics, that isn't going to happen.

    The best hope is to educate them enough that when the state finally collapses, they don't try to re-create it or choose some other form of government. To constantly point out that government is the immoral monopoly of force. That it uses that monopoly to steal and murder those within and without the country. It's up to those of us who can see it coming to show how they can live without a government and that choosing government is not choosing safety or freedom. Most won't listen until the walls are crumbling around them. Perhaps not even after, but I choose to hope for better.

    I don't hold much hope for those who are older, but the young aren't so easily fooled. My son and his friends have no trouble understanding the NAP or the predations of the government. They understand the violation of the NAP that forces them to attend public school (although I homeschool now). My son would talk to his friends all the time and they would actually listen. So I have some reason to hope. The ones that will take over are open to the truth even as they are forced to imbibe the lies of the state.
    (more)
  • The Ban... T A 2012/07/23 18:02:52
    The Bantam Seditioner
    +1
    Totally agreed on all points except one; I don't think Ron Paul is a statist anymore. I think he used to be, but that the futility and lunacy of the political process has pushed him further and further to pure anti-statism. I hear whispers at the online water coolers almost every day now that both he *and* Judge Napolitano are "closet AnCaps."

    Maybe those are just rumors, but it tickles my fancy to believe them. Besides, Ron Paul did admit right on the debate stage once that "all government is is force." It's an obvious truism, but hearing it from a politician was a pleasant shock. :D
  • T A The Ban... 2012/07/23 22:59:33
    T A
    +1
    I've heard that same rumor and there are things he's said or reported to have said (that I can't remember) that would lead one to believe he is a voluntarist at heart. However, in his capacity as president, he obviously wouldn't be acting on voluntarist principles were he to uphold his oath of office, which I believe he would do out of principle.

    I haven't heard so much about Judge Napolitano, but I wouldn't be too surprised. It's kind of like listening to Tom Woods. When he's in the spotlight talking to RP supporters or the media he sounds more like a minarchist and then when he's at the Mises Institute it's more ancap.

    That was great to hear from a politician. Especially when contrasted with the tenor of the way he said it vs. the way it sounded from Obama when he stated that government is a monopoly violence...like it was good and proper and no one else should have that power.

    He does seem to lay it out there even more than I was aware. He seems to have gone further than perhaps even the '04 race. I'm still bothered by the states' rights movement as a statist approach, but I can see it from the perspective of gradualism. It's more Rothbardian in its approach, tactically, but I don't know that he ever said such things, only that he would accept a "smaller is better just don't stop there argument". However, at least one can move from state to state without getting permission from the next state.

  • Teri- O... The Ban... 2012/07/19 22:20:59
    Teri- Oregon
    +9
    What if Gary Johnson makes Paul his VP choice? You know Gary Johnson is on all 50 ballots, if we can get enough people to vote for him we wouldn't get stuck with Obama or Romney.
  • Ev Rom Teri- O... 2012/07/20 01:18:26
    Ev Rom
    +1
    Possibly, if Ron Paul is in I'd consider it. I'd have to look up info on Gary Johnson.
  • Ev Rom Teri- O... 2012/07/20 01:30:13
  • Teri- O... Ev Rom 2012/07/20 01:31:53
    Teri- Oregon
    +2
    thanks
  • Ev Rom Teri- O... 2012/07/20 02:27:40
    Ev Rom
    +1
    its always good to look up info
  • Ken 2012/07/19 22:02:49
    I'm voting Romney because we need Obama out!
    Ken
    +2
    This election is so close that the Johnson dingbats could give the election to Obama.
  • historian Ken 2012/07/20 00:45:43
    historian
    +4
    The Romney dingbats are going to give the election to Obama becaus they're supporting a corporate puppet. If the hypocrites and liars calling themselves conservative won't vote for the candidate that is most faithful to the Constitution, lawful government, liberty, etc, then they are part of the problem. Stop blaming patriots for the woes caused by cowards and gulible, mind-controlled zombies that vote as they're commanded. Vote with principle not fear.
  • Ken historian 2012/07/20 01:55:24
    Ken
    Voting principle does nothing for America when the worst possible choice is your result. That is what voting for Johnson will achieve.
  • historian Ken 2012/07/20 17:12:12
    historian
    +1
    I dont' believe Gary Johnson is the worst choice. Oh, you mean that lie about a vote for anyone but Romney is a vote for Obama? Do they pay you people to advertise their propaganda or do you just do it for free?
  • Ken historian 2012/07/20 23:01:13
    Ken
    Voting for Johnson is like pissing in the ocean and worrying about pollution of the water.
  • Teri- O... Ken 2012/07/21 00:05:23
    Teri- Oregon
    +1
    so is voting for Romney
  • historian Ken 2012/07/21 00:44:48
    historian
    +1
    I would compare it more to trying to filter out the piss that the zombie voters who push a button they're told to by the corporate propaganda and globalist puppets keep putting in the ocean. We'll see the effect of people waking up to the scam by the turnout and possible destruction of the two-headed globalist party, while the cowards and mind-controlled vote for the lesser evil as they're told.
  • U-Dog Ken 2012/07/20 01:03:43
    U-Dog
    +3
    It's funny how the ready, fire, aim conservative geniuses all want to retreat, --AGAIN, AS USUAL-- yell ABO and then try pawn their weak loser choice off on people who do actually care about our constitution, rule of law and social and economic liberties within a free civil society.

    I guess it would be too much trouble for the RINO loving ABO geniuses to accept the fact that childish talk about liberty is cheap and that this race wouldn't be so desperately close if the so-called conservatives actually had the intellectual integrity, spines and balls to stand and back a real constitutionalists, rule of law candidate that does truly care about FREEDOM in a meaningful, consistent, fundamental, proven way.
  • Ken U-Dog 2012/07/20 02:00:41
    Ken
    You geniuses tried this once before and it helped get us to this point. Perotbots let Slick Willy Clinton win with less than 50% of the popular vote.
  • U-Dog Ken 2012/07/20 05:01:40 (edited)
    U-Dog
    +2
    So what... You have to be kidding if you are seriously trying to claim that Bob " Big Govt" Dole would have made any real difference vs Clinton. You right wing demopublicans make about as little sense as your left wing collectivist cousins sometimes. The GOP is offering nothing but a lighter version of the same crony-cap thing we have and yet all the ABO nuts are running in circles, acting like idiot chicken little Al Gore impersonators, screaming the sky will fall unless their lesser evil shyster gets elected.

    Good luck with that too but I would have thought that even the Republicans could do better than a lightweight amateur night equivalent of Obama's 08 "Chains for Dopes" campaign.

    Differing the speed of the US AmeriKa and swerving a little left and right may be enough to fool dopes Ken but it doesn't alter the destination that the Demopublicans have set... The people might buy a little time electing one propped up big gov crony versus another but, until the course is truly altered back towards Fundamental Liberties, the top heavy rat infested rust bucket of a ship is ultimately still headed straight towards SERFDOM ROCK.

    If folks like you still believe it will somehow, someway, magically, this time, make a real difference and you feel that you are doing the right thi...

    So what... You have to be kidding if you are seriously trying to claim that Bob " Big Govt" Dole would have made any real difference vs Clinton. You right wing demopublicans make about as little sense as your left wing collectivist cousins sometimes. The GOP is offering nothing but a lighter version of the same crony-cap thing we have and yet all the ABO nuts are running in circles, acting like idiot chicken little Al Gore impersonators, screaming the sky will fall unless their lesser evil shyster gets elected.

    Good luck with that too but I would have thought that even the Republicans could do better than a lightweight amateur night equivalent of Obama's 08 "Chains for Dopes" campaign.

    Differing the speed of the US AmeriKa and swerving a little left and right may be enough to fool dopes Ken but it doesn't alter the destination that the Demopublicans have set... The people might buy a little time electing one propped up big gov crony versus another but, until the course is truly altered back towards Fundamental Liberties, the top heavy rat infested rust bucket of a ship is ultimately still headed straight towards SERFDOM ROCK.

    If folks like you still believe it will somehow, someway, magically, this time, make a real difference and you feel that you are doing the right thing by continuing to sanction the same old "heads the demopublicans wins, tails the people lose" machine then feel free to spin your wheels all day long Ken... But, if you folks don't like coming across as childish whiney Alinsky style libtart brats you might also want to reconsider trying to irresponsibly blame your lame O-lite candidates lack luster showing on everyone but yourselves.

    hayek road to serfdom
    (more)
  • Ken U-Dog 2012/07/20 05:11:30
    Ken
    Clinton beat Bush Sr. with Perot's help. Dole was a sacrifice candidate with absolutely no chance to win.
  • U-Dog Ken 2012/07/20 05:50:16
    U-Dog
    +1
    Perot probably allowed Clinton to beat both Bush and Dole but again I would ask what would have been the REAL difference... And I would argue very damn little. One was a big govt demopublican and the other was a big govt republicrat and about the only difference left between the two --aside from all the cheap made for TV rhetoric -- is how fast they are PROGRESSING us towards a completely top down fascist state.

    1992 Percentage Clinton - 43.0% Bush - 37.5% Perot - 18.9%
    1996 Percentage Clinton - 49.2% Dole - 40.7% Perot - 8.4%
  • Ken U-Dog 2012/07/20 23:03:34
    Ken
    It didn't matter anyway when the Republicans took control of Congress.
  • historian Ken 2012/07/20 17:18:50
    historian
    +1
    The fact that people were fed up with the Bush Sr era is why Clinton won. He had not only been a part of the Reagan regime, but was in the CIA, and then became President, led the nation into a war based on lies and propaganda, and made empty promises to the American people. There was a large segment of voters who realized the two headed globalist party was in control and decided to go with Ross Perot, not so much on principle, but because they were tired of the status quo. He played around, dropped out, got back in, and lost. Ross Perot is not the end all be all of attempts to break away from the oppression of the two headed globalist party system. He's an excuse for those who are too weak and cowardly to stop letting corporate propaganda and fear tactics tell them where to place their vote, or too ignorant to think for themselves.
    Blaming others for the problems the zombie voters create is a cop out, but typical of this "it's everyone else's fault" society. Stop blaming those who use their votes as a voice supporting candidates who are the most qualified and best choice, as was intended for the system. You people who make excuses for picking the slower poison that will kill this country are cowards, many of which claim they're ready to take up arms to "defend the Constitution", but are LIARS, as the proof that you won't even break from the herd to vote independently shows your true colors.
  • Ken historian 2012/07/20 23:06:07
    Ken
    Your right is to make the choice you want, mine is not to agree with it if I want.
  • Ev Rom 2012/07/19 21:59:32
    I was never voting Paul, I was always voting Obama.
    Ev Rom
    +2
    My first choice is Ron Paul if not then Obama.
  • kir Ev Rom 2012/07/19 22:21:49
    kir
    +7
    Four more years of killing innocent people with unmanned drones and bailing out corrupt businesses huh?
  • Ev Rom kir 2012/07/19 22:45:03
    Ev Rom
    +1
    I'm not for war but I guess you'd rather our troops die killing other people. I don't recall republicans being against the first bail out when Bush was still in office and they finally figured out he destroyed the economy.
  • kir Ev Rom 2012/07/19 22:56:15 (edited)
    kir
    +5
    No; I would rather we end all these idiotic wars, bring out troops home, and slice military spending.

    http://politicoid.blogspot.co...

    I should note by the way that Obama actually tried to extend our stay in Iraq and we're still in Afghanistan losing soldiers.
  • Ev Rom kir 2012/07/19 23:03:34
    Ev Rom
    +2
    I don't care for Obama mostly because he turned out to be a war pig just like republicans. I don't agree with killing innocent women and children and our troops.
  • kir Ev Rom 2012/07/19 23:04:23
    kir
    +5
    But why would you go from Ron Paul who is for our rights to someone like Obama who is almost the polar opposite of Obama when you have someone like Gary Johnson?
  • Ev Rom kir 2012/07/19 23:14:19 (edited)
    Ev Rom
    +1
    because hardly anyone knows of Gary Johnson, he wasn't even in the debates, I know more about and have researched Ron Paul and he would have a better chance than Johnson. If Ron Paul doesn't run and endorses GJ I might think about it. If Ron Paul endorses Romney I will be done with Ron Paul and volunteering my time, money and efforts for Obama
  • kir Ev Rom 2012/07/19 23:32:36
    kir
    +4
    Oh believe me, quite a few people know of Johnson. But the point is, why support a warmonger over someone who is good for this country, even if that person is less well known?

    Your logic is so strange. You're going from someone who wants to protect people from the government to someone who wants to destroy the middle class and continue killing people overseas.
  • Ev Rom kir 2012/07/20 00:19:17
    Ev Rom
    Because there is not a good chance that he can win, look at Ron Paul, he has a huge following and still cant win. I actually don't think that Ron Paul cant win. I already saw what the media and rich did in Mexico in their elections, it is just that Ron Paul is not one of gang members of either the republican or democrat mob.

    The only reason I choose Obama over Romney is because I loath the idea of people getting killed over seas but the difference is that our troops are not running that risk. I think Romney will escalate things because he will be like all war pig republicans, he'll send out troops out to die.
  • kir Ev Rom 2012/07/20 00:27:37
    kir
    +2
    So you'd rather be on the winning side? What insanity. Obama just signed a bill murdering 1,000 small businesses. Obama has AMERICAN CITIZENS on kill lists, which is in complete violation of the constitution, and Obama is bringing us dangerously close to a war in Iran.
  • Ev Rom kir 2012/07/20 00:31:35
    Ev Rom
    I'm on the American peoples side, that is why I know Ron Paul is the best choice.

    You just want your team to win to be a cheerleader for them regardless of their record, history and the danger they have posed to this country.

    Can you show me those lists please?
  • historian Ev Rom 2012/07/20 00:47:26
    historian
    +3
    He was in the debate at the beginning, but the corporate propaganda edged him out.
  • U-Dog 2012/07/19 21:59:19
    I'm voting for Gary Johnson because he is on all 50 state ballots this year
    U-Dog
    +8
    If Ron Paul does not get the nomination I will be voting Libertarian... Someone has to stand up and defend Liberty instead of just continuing to COWardly sanction the same old status-quo Demopublican crooks.
  • kir 2012/07/19 21:55:41
    I'm voting for Gary Johnson because he is on all 50 state ballots this year
    kir
    +6
    Gary Johnson is the most libertarian candidate and has a good track record.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2013/05/20 00:24:21

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals