You all don't know what we had on McCain
Hey, to all the people objecting to my supporting the election of Obama, you guys just do not understand what intelligence several of us had on McCain. We had evidence on McCain sufficient enough to COMPEL us to break the tie and vote for Obama.
I've heard this rationalized six ways from Sunday. Here is the bottom line. I voted for Obama to defeat McCain. Period. No other third party candidates had supporters who sufficiently believed in them to give them the money to make them relevant. That's not MY fault, that is the fault of the supporters of those candidates, and you know who you are. Hell, Chuck Baldwin didn't even appear on my freakin' BALLOT. No other vote would defeat McCain.
At issue was the electoral vote count in the state of Arizona. Why is THAT important? Well, I am a voter in Arizona. I felt it was necessary here to defeat McCain in the Arizona electoral college in order to destroy his career in Arizona. That didn't work, he won Arizona anyway, but polls showed him in trouble here.
With my vote for Obama, I was trying to influence the 2010 election. Namely, I wanted McCain to retire. I want him gone. So yeah, I voted strategically, as I have for 33 years, and voted for the principal opponent of the person I felt most dangerous. I backed that up by voting Republican in several places on the ballot. The last person I thought I was voting FOR as President prior to voting for Ron Paul in the primaries was Ross Perot. Perot merited it because his supporters were getting behind him, and he was investing his own wealth in the process. Paul merited it because his supporters were getting behind him. I do vote for someone I want if someone I want appears on the ballot AND makes themselves relevant to the race. Perot and Paul did that.
I'm sorry if my voting upset you all. That's just too goddamned bad. You want to matter, then get behind the people you want, put your wealth behind them, and make them relevant to the race. You want me NOT to vote for an alleged Socialist, then get involved in the GOP to make sure they nominate people who aren't Socialists. If all you people give me is a choice between a European Socialist and a National Socialist/Soviet Socialist, I'll take the European Socialist every time. So will most people. That's why Obama won. You want to offer Freedom? Put up Freedom candidates.
My personal opinion is about the GOP is, unless they put up 100% gun rights candidates and at least 90% freedom candidates, they should be defeated at the polls and that Democrats should be elected in their place. Also, as long as the GOP stand for the "Gayhaters Organizing Party", you have got to realize that many of us are just simply NOT going to go along. I'm willing to overlook that... IF their candidate is a freedom canidate... but not otherwise.
I thought Obama was a better choice tha McCain, significantly. I still do. I think Obama is a better choice than Kerry. Possibly even a better choice than Al Gore. Would there have been better choices among the Democrats who didn't run? Sure. Howard Dean for starters. But that's water under the bridge as Dean didn't run.
But if you don't understand why I voted for Obama, then you seriously misunderestimated how much I and many of my compadres despise John McCain. You have failed to study McCain, if you fail to understand how and why we felt the need to vote against him. Study up on that if your heads are still spinning, and stop trying to fly this canard about "Liz Michael's lack of ethics".
Oh, for anybody who wants to put their money wher their mouth is...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RonPaul2012
I've heard this rationalized six ways from Sunday. Here is the bottom line. I voted for Obama to defeat McCain. Period. No other third party candidates had supporters who sufficiently believed in them to give them the money to make them relevant. That's not MY fault, that is the fault of the supporters of those candidates, and you know who you are. Hell, Chuck Baldwin didn't even appear on my freakin' BALLOT. No other vote would defeat McCain.
At issue was the electoral vote count in the state of Arizona. Why is THAT important? Well, I am a voter in Arizona. I felt it was necessary here to defeat McCain in the Arizona electoral college in order to destroy his career in Arizona. That didn't work, he won Arizona anyway, but polls showed him in trouble here.
With my vote for Obama, I was trying to influence the 2010 election. Namely, I wanted McCain to retire. I want him gone. So yeah, I voted strategically, as I have for 33 years, and voted for the principal opponent of the person I felt most dangerous. I backed that up by voting Republican in several places on the ballot. The last person I thought I was voting FOR as President prior to voting for Ron Paul in the primaries was Ross Perot. Perot merited it because his supporters were getting behind him, and he was investing his own wealth in the process. Paul merited it because his supporters were getting behind him. I do vote for someone I want if someone I want appears on the ballot AND makes themselves relevant to the race. Perot and Paul did that.
I'm sorry if my voting upset you all. That's just too goddamned bad. You want to matter, then get behind the people you want, put your wealth behind them, and make them relevant to the race. You want me NOT to vote for an alleged Socialist, then get involved in the GOP to make sure they nominate people who aren't Socialists. If all you people give me is a choice between a European Socialist and a National Socialist/Soviet Socialist, I'll take the European Socialist every time. So will most people. That's why Obama won. You want to offer Freedom? Put up Freedom candidates.
My personal opinion is about the GOP is, unless they put up 100% gun rights candidates and at least 90% freedom candidates, they should be defeated at the polls and that Democrats should be elected in their place. Also, as long as the GOP stand for the "Gayhaters Organizing Party", you have got to realize that many of us are just simply NOT going to go along. I'm willing to overlook that... IF their candidate is a freedom canidate... but not otherwise.
I thought Obama was a better choice tha McCain, significantly. I still do. I think Obama is a better choice than Kerry. Possibly even a better choice than Al Gore. Would there have been better choices among the Democrats who didn't run? Sure. Howard Dean for starters. But that's water under the bridge as Dean didn't run.
But if you don't understand why I voted for Obama, then you seriously misunderestimated how much I and many of my compadres despise John McCain. You have failed to study McCain, if you fail to understand how and why we felt the need to vote against him. Study up on that if your heads are still spinning, and stop trying to fly this canard about "Liz Michael's lack of ethics".
Oh, for anybody who wants to put their money wher their mouth is...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RonPaul2012
You are right - I do not know what evidence you have against John McCain that would make you support a communist empty suit like Obumma, So why don't you TELL us all what this damning evidence is and stop making coy reference to it, if indeed, it exists ? If you are telling the truth, tell it. Don't hide it !
Reply to this
GOP = Gayhaters' Organizing Party ?
Are you nuts ? Since when is it hate to disagree with someone else's philosophy ? It is the homosexuals and spineless liberals (read, dumocrats) who are demanding an end to personal opinions and expression of opinions. They are the ones who are demanding that all people everywhere agree with them and their behavior or be branded as "Gay-haters" and prosecuted (actually, persecuted) under "hate-crimes" legislation. How about we turn the tables and make it hate speech to approve of homosexuals and lesbians and their lifestyles ? How about we prosecute you and jail you for agreeing with them just as you want to do to whomever dares to disagree with them?
And as for guns, you wanted the people to rise up against George Bush who defended our Constitution yet you supported Obuma who is openly hostile to gun rights and the Second Amendment. You speak with forked tongue, lady. The Second Amendment was to allow americans to defend themselves against enemies from without and within and prevent dictatorship. But while you advocate for gun rights you voted for liberals to establish dictatorship in America. You voted for an end to freedom. Who are you ???
Reply to this
I agree - what 'intel' compelled you to vote for Obama?
Unfortunately, this country doesn't have a 'vote against' function. That would be the best possible change we could make.
I'm also sorry to hear your comments on supporting third-party candidates. In essence you said "I'll support them just as soon as everyone else does". Your argument that "I want to combine all third parties into one, and it wasn't well received, so I won't support any of them" is childish, and the idea itself is silly. You expect Socialists to support Libertarians, and vice-versa, in one big family? Never happen.
How about you pick a party and candidates you *agree with* and support them, instead of parroting the "if you don't like one of the big two you have to vote for the other" nonsense that the sheeple are sold on?
Reply to this
Don't misunderstand. I am perfectly willing to support candidates that are neither Democratic nor Republican, the two "Communist Parties". They just have to make themselves relevant. I.E., they actually have to be trying to win the elections they are in. A couple of years ago, the American Independent Party in California had an election, a special election for a congressional seat, and a number of activists put money and activism into winning that seat from the Republican and they came pretty close. I supported Ross Perot twice. I will support candidates under these special circumstances. But I will not support candidates whose candidacies are designed to lose elections.
As for "picking a party I agree with", that is just the trouble. There ain't none. Closest to it would probably be the Liberal Democratic Party of Great Britain, but of course, they don't exist here.
I disagree with your synopsis that "libertarians and socialists can never support one another". I have a friend whose political beliefs are about 90% coincidental with mine, yet he is a declared socialist, and I am a declared libertarian. The chief difference between the AVERAGE libertarian (I'm not talking about the radicals who believe even a 1% tax makes you the equivalent of Hitler) and the AVERAGE socialist, I have found, has been not on values, because many of us have the same values, but on "delivery". Socialists tend to have more of a belief that a strong central government can deliver things, and I believe that a legitimate free market should be the FIRST recourse, emphasize first recourse, to deliver things. However, we do have tribal responsibilities that can only be delivered via government. I believe that is best done by LOCAL government and not a strong central government.
The minor parties not only don't try to win the elections most of the time, they don't even believe what I believe. The Libertarian Party DOESN'T appeal to rank and file libertarians, but only to a handful of hardcore libertarians and near anarchists.
I simply found Obama to be the far superior candidate to McCain. I'm sorry if you don't agree. I know McCain much to well to have ever voted for him. How I will vote in 2012 depends on who shows up and who, out of those who show up, are serious. If Ron Paul is the Republican, it's a lock I will support him. If Mitt Romney is the Republican, it's a lock I will oppose him. Everything and everybody else is up for grabs at this point.
Reply to this
Liz, if we're really lucky 2012 will be just another leap year. The Yankee Empire hangs by a thin and fraying thread. I'm standing by my prediction of last summer that whoever won the election will ultimately wish he'd lost, as he will be the *last* US president. Let the breakup begin!
Reply to this
Too late for this, but, what happens next?
Reply to this