Presidential Poll II

So I'm supposed to prove that the common average everyday voter is highly ignorant by citing uncommon people like Alec Baldwin or Willie Herenton or some such?

that makes no sense.

 

This is why Johnson wouldn't be a better choice than either Obama or Romney. He would get jack shit done while there is still a whole hell of a lot that needs getting done. Johnson is honestly the worst of those three options.

 

Romney's bumbling of using the Libyan embassy attacks to score political points is dropping his score for me fast.

 

I'd like everyone to take a moment and give that last sentence some thought.

 

Maybe more would get done...you wouldn't have one side or the other blindly supporting/fighting anything based on the letter after his name and party loyalties.

Maybe it would force these jerks to deal with legislation based on it's merits and not just party affiliation.

It's hard to know what would happen until it does. But there are states with Independent governors for example, who do manage to get things done.

 

If you look at individual voting records, neither side universally votes as a bloc on everything all the time even now, though the lines tend to be pretty clearly drawn on the basis of party. Who's to say a Libertarian in the White House wouldn't cause the majority on both sides to sit on their hands for four years?

Or maybe having a Libertarian in the White House would cause the majority on both sides to sit on their hands for four years. Or just play Tea Party and yell "NO!" to everything like spoiled children, right down bathroom breaks.

It seems to be a matter of scale. If the majority in your district, city, county, or state share your views, you get things done. That won't work at the federal level, because of sheer numbers, and because each state is scrabbling for its own "share."

One thing's for certain, though. If a third party candidate were elected, many of the same folks here suffering from ODS would be rationalizing the hell out of why their candidate couldn't accomplish everything he promised during the campaign.

 

Who?

 

Off hand I can only think of Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island, and the place is a basket case.

 

Because things have gotten done so well the last 2 years? Remind me about the last budget the Senate passed? You would be assuming too much to think anything gets done now, or is likely to without new blood.

Beyond that - not getting anything done is often better than what the bozos up there actually do.

All that said, Johnson's argument is that being as he has no allegience to either tribe of stooges, he can call bullshit on both of them when necessary and serve as a force to drive both to a sensible non-partisan result - BECAUSE he can bring a voice to the table that is not tained with "what's good for my party" over "what's good for my country"

Seems logical to me, though I am somewhat skeptical the stooges will see it that way.

in any case, it can't be WORSE than what we've seen them doing the last two years.

 

And they would have to compromise and deal with him.

As i noted above, he would be uniquely position to call bullshit where bullshit needed to be called, without regard to partisan political considerations. What one thing could the two tribes of stooges in Washington need MORE than that?

 

My COUNTY has twice the population of Rhode Island.

 

Also an important consideration.

 

They might. I'm sure we can construct a "what if" scenario that reflects horribly on both Obama and Romney. One must always weigh the likelihood of the various potential outcomes when making a decision.


But then, the Senate has sat on their hands under Democrat Leadership for two years now. Did I miss your outraged post about that?

And this would be different from how it is already in what significant way?

 

[yt=Okay, so he was not an independent as governor]FP69507fTKY[/yt]

 

If one were rational, one would. If one were suffering from ODS, one would forget entirely that there were three branches of government and foam at the mouth in the Red Room as if the executive had some sort of empirical power.

I guess your definition of sitting on their hands is different from mine:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_112_1.htm
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_112_2.htm

Let's see if the electorate can come to its senses and oust the NO Party, and then we'll know.

 

See this.

 

Well, the people arguing about this are rooted in the partisanship and want Democrats to win, so of course the idea of a third party doesn't appeal to you.

 

And since hardly anyone on WF wants Romney to win, that makes the other side above reproach, eh?

And why is it your perception that only Johnson supporters vote for the candidate, and everyone else votes for the party?

 

It suits the narrative put forward by libertopiaforrge that they are part of some sort of majority in the real world.

 

Above reproach? No.

However, where in this thread is a Republican arguing about this? Because that is what I said, not partisans everywhere on earth.

 

Since only three WFers are voting for Romney, they may prefer to sit back and let the libertopians preach at the rest of us.

 

I'm not libertopian either.

 

IIRC, you usually describe yourself as conservative. Do you vote party or candidate?

 

I have a mix of conservative, libertarian and conservative viewpoints that don't seem to play well with others. I find my stances often evolving, probably because of the time I spend online reading and learning new things and meeting new people from all over the world.

I am registered "Undecided" and always have been. I choose by candidate, what they say and I try to find out what they have done in the past to try and figure out what they will really do.

I tend to fall economically conservative/libertarian and socially libertarian/liberal. However, straight Libertarianism goes too far, IMO. Sometimes people need assistance and some regulations are necessary.

Like I said...I'm kind of all over the place sometimes and finding a good fit isn't easy.

 

Thanks for the clarification. The bolded part describes me as well.

 

How out of touch is Romney? He claims a middle class American "makes between $200,000 to $250,000 per year".

The guy is so out of touch it is unbelievable.

http://gawker.com/5943330/romney-believes-middle income-americans-make-200000-to-250000-a-year

 

Mittens must have invested in shovels, because he's digging himself a deeper and darker hole to get out of every day.

Totally incompetent regarding foreign policy, totally out of touch at home.

 

The job of Mitt Romney in this election cycle is to make Sarah Palin look brilliant and policy wonkish in comparison and thereby rehabilitate her image in preparation for her 2016 run. At least he's acting like that's his job.

 

To be fair, he did say "less than $200,000 to $250,000 per year." But that is still an outlandishly high response for the upper range of middle class incomes. What else do you expect from the guy wipes his butt with $100 bills?