I just don't see the point in a discussion forum where posts get modified. He should leave it alone or delete it. Dont change the post to say something else.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
President Gary Johnson: Nationwide constitutional carry?
- Thread starter ryan7068
- Start date
I just don't see the point in a discussion forum where posts get modified. He should leave it alone or delete it. Dont change the post to say something else.
Totally agreed if true. It was the part about going to the CC forum that I was referring to.
OC for ME
Regular Member
"I have principals and support 'the' third party"
"I have principals and support the republican party."
"I have principals and support the democrat party."
"I have principals and support my own selfish interests."
"I have principals and support any party that gives out free beer."
"Who is Gary Johnson and is he giving out free beer?"
"I have principals and support the republican party."
"I have principals and support the democrat party."
"I have principals and support my own selfish interests."
"I have principals and support any party that gives out free beer."
"Who is Gary Johnson and is he giving out free beer?"
You falsely claimed/implied that someone else deleted your post when you deleted it after an insulting phrase was edited.
The 1st Amend is a limitation on the government.
I have principles and don't understand the point of your comment. There is no such thing as free beer.
grylnsmn
Regular Member
Here's an article by Ilya Somin, a law professor at GMU and a very committed libertarian, discussing Gary Johnson's candidacy. I recommend reading the entire thing, but the part that I agree with the most is in his conclusion:
If you want to throw your vote away in a way that doesn't advance the policy goals you support, no one else can stop you. But, it's irrational to keep advocating the same methodology for spreading your policy views that has repeatedly failed to increase your support.
crazydude6030
Regular Member
Please, lets stop using the term throwing "throwing away your vote". Its simply not true. The point of voting is to vote for the guy you like the best. Not choosing between two parties.
The suggestion that I keep reading here indicates that if they have not shot in winning you should vote for someone who does. Judging by the latest poll and the trend we shouldnt bother voting unless its for Obama by that logic
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/obama-romney.aspx
Last edited:
grylnsmn
Regular Member
The key to what I said is in the latter part of the phrase, "in a way that doesn't advance the policy goals you support".
Remember, ultimately the point of an election is to direct how you want the government run. If your vote doesn't actually advance the policies that you support (because the candidate that you support cannot mathematically win), then it is a wasted vote. You have thrown it away, because you aren't achieving anything with it. You aren't moving anything towards your goals.
It doesn't matter how much you like the guy in the end, because the office is not about the man. It's about the policy. And if your vote cannot move things towards the policies that you want, then how is it not thrown away?
That data reflect registered voters. In Gallup's likely voter polls, Romney is ahead by 2 points over Obama.
But, there's a difference between a narrow margin in the polls, and someone who is consistently more than 40 points behind the two frontrunners. The person only down by 2 points still has a very good chance of winning the election this late in the game. The person down by over 40 points has no realistic chance to win. Therefore, logically, the better choice is the candidate with a realistic chance to win that is closest to your preferred policies. If that person is currently in the lead, it helps to increase their margin of victory. If they aren't in the lead, it has a greater probability of helping them gain the lead.
Either way, your vote towards one of the two candidates with a realistic chance to win will have a larger influence than using it on someone who has no realistic chance to win.
crazydude6030
Regular Member
What does that matter if those views/goals do not match my own? If i voted for someone who i didnt really want to win then what is the point in even voting?
I have noticed a trend that even in personal debates that people who use coin phrases such as "wasting your vote" are normally worried that romney will not be able to win without these third party votes. It would seem that view is shared in the polls as well.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155537/Little-Support-Third-Party-Candidates-2012-Election.aspx
If my concern was stricly gun rights then niether person would have my vote. However, the debt, healthcare, and other issues have left my vote as undecided thus far.
crazydude6030
Regular Member
using the coined phrase. If i didnt vote then its wasted. If i vote for someone who i do not feel is the best fit for what i belive than its wasted. Voting for someone that closes matches my views is not a wasted vote.
Last edited:
OC for ME
Regular Member
Thanks for the spell check.
Free beer
More free beer
Search diligently and you just may find free beer.
grylnsmn
Regular Member
Again, look at what I actually said. If there are only two candidates that have a realistic chance of winning, then the logical course is to vote for the one who is closest to your position of the two. Why? Because that gives you the most influence in actually implementing policies that you want.
Consider it this way. Look at the chart I've created below.
| Candidate | Chance of Winning | Agreement |
| A | 55% | 30% |
| B | 45% | 50% |
| C | 0% | 100% |
If you do the math, with Candidate A, you get a 16.5% chance that some policies you agree with will be implemented. With Candidate B, you get a 22.5% chance. With Candidate C, however, you get a 0% chance. Why? Because no matter how much you agree with the candidate, they can't implement your preferred policies unless they get elected. In that case, the rational choice is to vote for candidate B, because it gives you the greatest probability of getting policies you support. (All numbers given are just for illustration purposes.)
While I would prefer Romney win, in this sort of discussion I am more concerned with the lack of rational evaluation of the candidates that I see. If you do your evaluation and think that Obama gives you the better chance of getting your preferred policies actually implemented, then go ahead and vote for him. Unlike some other people, I have enough faith in the system that I don't believe any single person, even holding the office of President of the United States, can destroy our nation. And if a greater part of the population consistently choose elected officials who do take our nation down that sort of path, then we get the government that we deserve.
Then use those issues to evaluate the candidates and find the one that gives you the best chance of getting as much of what you want as you can. The only thing I can promise you is that voting for a person who mathematically cannot get elected will never get you want you want.
Last edited:
Both expected something in return. That's not free. Granted, they can't verify how you vote.
You're blinded by the short term.
Let's assume republicans lose again and they attribute it those of us who voted for 3rd parties. Maybe they'll realize how many of their (former) members they've ostracized and next time run someone who's not actually a Democrat in principle.
ETA:
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Pr...setts/Mitt_Romney/Views/The_Second_Amendment/
[video=youtube;Kk1bJOpYUqE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk1bJOpYUqE&feature=player_embedded[/video]
Last edited:
OC for ME
Regular Member
Fussbudgety.
What do you expect him to do exactly? If he's elected which Romney will act?
[video=youtube_share;EQwrB1vu74c]http://youtu.be/EQwrB1vu74c[/video]
Ryans in town today
I don't understand why some of you cant see the logic in 2a supporters voting for Romney over Obama or Johnson. While I agree with many of Johnsons views I understand that he has very little to no chance of winning. Actually he has no chance. This election is no time to demonstrate how upset you are with the GOPs pick for president. I say that because after another 4 years of Obama, Ron Paul or no other canadiate will be able to fix our nations problems. I am no cheerleader for Romney but out of the two men that have a shot at president he is the best option. This is America. I dont think Romney or Obama for that matter can take our guns away....there would be blood in the streets. I want someone that can begin to repair the economy and create jobs.
I don't understand why some of you cant see the logic in 2a supporters voting for Romney over Obama or Johnson. While I agree with many of Johnsons views I understand that he has very little to no chance of winning. Actually he has no chance. This election is no time to demonstrate how upset you are with the GOPs pick for president. I say that because after another 4 years of Obama, Ron Paul or no other canadiate will be able to fix our nations problems. I am no cheerleader for Romney but out of the two men that have a shot at president he is the best option. This is America. I dont think Romney or Obama for that matter can take our guns away....there would be blood in the streets. I want someone that can begin to repair the economy and create jobs.
Wow. That was a perfect metaphor for his entire presidency.
Promising free stuff that nobody needs him for, not getting any takers, finally convincing someone to accept, only to tell them he didn't really have it.
crazydude6030
Regular Member
I have deep concerns over how Romney will act once in office. I fear he maybe more of a gun grabber then the guy we have now. If I vote for him and he does turn out to be a gun grabber then I will have deep regrets to say the least.
Voting for a 3rd guy wont matter much if we get a progun congress. At that point it wouldnt matter what Romney or Obama would want to do.
Bottom line: i would like to avoid helping either gun grabber into office.