Vote Barr

BLINGMW · 10-30-2008, 01:19 PM

I just have two things to say.

1) Please take 5 minutes and read over his stance on the issues. Certainly much more of your time has been spent hearing about the "other" candidates. Come back here with any questions, things you don't agree with and we'll discuss them through good 'ol fashioned internet screaming IN ALL CAPS.

2) If you like what you see, and think his and the Libertairian party's views are more in line with what you think the federal government should be doing, please vote for him. Among my coworkers, I've got at least as many commitments to Barr as Obama or McCain, so there ARE others out there and you are NOT throwing your vote away when you vote for who you want to win rather than simply voting for who has the biggest campaign or who the mainstream media chooses to cover.

Kaan · 10-30-2008, 01:59 PM

I like Barr. DonÔÇÖt get me wrong. I agree with just about everything he has to say. But I am caught in the typical ÔÇ£two party dilemma.ÔÇØ

IÔÇÖm adamantly opposed to Obama. There are things about his tax breaks I do not believe are true. He would love to strip the constitution of its power and directly challenge Supreme Court rulings on gun cases. I donÔÇÖt think there is more than a hand full of ideas Obama has that I might agree with.

Obama has built up a lot of steam in the last month. Virginia is now looking more and more like a swing state. I canÔÇÖt justify voting for a third party candidate and risk having Obama win Virginia. I just canÔÇÖt do it.

There would have to be a lot more pull behind a third party right now to swing my vote. And sure itÔÇÖs the lesser of two evils argument, but I feel the cost is too high to put it behind someone that wonÔÇÖt win this election.

BLINGMW · 10-30-2008, 02:19 PM

well we're the only ones who can do anything about the "two party system". If we never vote for for anything else in any significant numbers, then we propagate it once again, and the "two parties" just love it! It'll always be that way if we let it. Heck, I'd rather see Obama win if that meant Barr got 19% of the vote like Perot got and sent the message again that we cannot ignore these other parties forever. Obama won't be able to get any of that bullshit done in the next 4 years anyway. It'll be just the same in 4 years if either one of them wins. We'll just be slightly less impressed with the federal government's performance, our taxes will be just a little higher, we'll have lost a few civil liberties here and there, and we'll be even more in debt. And maybe next time people will go, damn, they got 19% last time, what if we could make it 29% this time and really get the "change" we thought the last douche (or turd sandwich) was going to bring us? :dunno:

OOH! I have an idea Kaan. I'll do my best to talk an Obama supporter into voting for Barr. Maybe we can get one on here. Then you can vote for Barr too and it'll be one vote "stolen" from each. :thumbup:

Apoc · 10-30-2008, 03:01 PM

Kaan Wrote:Obama has built up a lot of steam in the last month. Virginia is now looking more and more like a swing state. I canÔÇÖt justify voting for a third party candidate and risk having Obama win Virginia. I just canÔÇÖt do it.

It's gonna happen anyway so you might as well vote where you want. At least that's what I did in '04 election when I voted for Badnarik. I was vehemently opposed to Bush getting re-elected but I could take solace in knowing he was going to get Virginia anyway.

Ole · 10-30-2008, 03:08 PM

The Independant Party, Libertarian Party or Green Party has had no significant showing in the past, gowing all the way back to TR. It is unfortunate, but if you vote for Barr or Paul, you are helping no-one. The situation has been to vote for the better of the two evils for me since Reagan. Perot only received around 18% of the popular vote. If I am not mistaken, that is the best showing since (I think) 1911.

Kaan · 10-30-2008, 03:16 PM

Ole Wrote:The Independant Party, Libertarian Party or Green Party has had no significant showing in the past, gowing all the way back to TR. It is unfortunate, but if you vote for Barr or Paul, you are helping no-one. The situation has been to vote for the better of the two evils for me since Reagan. Perot only received around 18% of the popular vote. If I am not mistaken, that is the best showing since (I think) 1911.

and this is exactly my mind set...

Ole · 10-30-2008, 03:23 PM

There will never be a candidate that will propose to do everything that I think they should (thank goodness). I vote for the candidate that best represents my beliefs AND is electable. Therefore, even though I like many of Barr's and Paul's positions, I will not vote for them because they have no chance of winning

Apoc · 10-30-2008, 03:37 PM

I knew this thread would make me sad.

NTIman · 10-30-2008, 03:39 PM

Jesse Ventura's idea: Add "none of the above" to every ballot.

DierwulfBL · 10-30-2008, 03:50 PM

I still stand behind Ron Paul 100%, and I am voting for Bob Barr along with any constitutionalist leaning candidates locally (prolly none)

Ole · 10-30-2008, 03:58 PM

I'm not trying to say you should or should not vote for who you believe in, I am only stating my philosophy on voting.....

Ole · 10-30-2008, 03:58 PM

Apoc Wrote:I knew this thread would make me sad.

So did I...... :mrgreen:

CaptainHenreh · 10-30-2008, 04:34 PM

Ole Wrote:The Independant Party, Libertarian Party or Green Party has had no significant showing in the past, gowing all the way back to TR. It is unfortunate, but if you vote for Barr or Paul, you are helping no-one. The situation has been to vote for the better of the two evils for me since Reagan. Perot only received around 18% of the popular vote. If I am not mistaken, that is the best showing since (I think) 1911.

Good thing nobody had that attitude when the Republican party was founded, and bypassed the Whig party in *under six years*.

Voting for Barr (or that Constitution whacko, I guess) shows politicians who would normally consider a third party to be a political dead end that maybe, just maybe it isn't.

I'm sorry, but it's attitudes exactly like yours that not only have gotten us into this problem to begin with, but continue to propagate it. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

Sorry, I can't in good conscience vote for any of a pair of candidates that are just arguing the methods of the destruction of this nation.

McCain: "I think we should just drive straight into the wall with our foot on the floor."
Obama: "I think we should brake feint, cut the wheel, and roll into the wall."

Don't you want to at least TRY to elect the guy who says "Hey, I've got an idea! Let's slow down."

Ole · 10-30-2008, 04:50 PM

So the Republican Party took off in "under six years". The Independent Party has been around much longer and has produced nothing since TR. That was my point. Barr has no chance of winning, neither does Paul. Therefore, I will vote for one of the candidates that has a chance of winning. Neither of these two were my choice in the primary. Neither were they the person I would like to see as President. You can attack my philosophy all you want, but many subscribe to this method of working through the process rather than a "it's my way or the highway" mentality.

PS. I'm sure that many did have this attitude way back when; there was just a better electable candidate in a different party back then.

BLINGMW · 10-30-2008, 04:56 PM

Ole Wrote:PS. I'm sure that many did have this attitude way back when; there was just a better electable candidate in a different party back then.

I would propose that if Barr had 100+ million to spend on a campaign, he might be just as "electable" as either of the two that are. Perot came damn close. Why? Because he had MAD CASH and got himself in everyone's face. Way back when, (I would guess) candidates just weren't spending nearly as much... there wasn't nearly as much to spend it on.

If we outlawed TV advertisements, put some hard limits on spending, I bet 3rd parties would stand a chance. But which of the "two" parties is going to support something that lets others play? I would also argue that our voting system is just awful, we could be ranking our choices to cull much more data from each voter, and there should be a margin of error just like ANY other poll or statistic. If someone wins by 1%, well damn, we can't count that accurately, so do-over.

Ole · 10-30-2008, 04:57 PM

Perot received 18%, not very close at all.

Ole · 10-30-2008, 04:59 PM

Correct that: 18.9%

WRXtranceformed · 10-30-2008, 05:02 PM

I cant wait until election season is over. I think it gives bored Americans something to talk about and get excited over, and then they justify it by making themselves feel like they actually have any influence over what happens to this country.

WRXtranceformed · 10-30-2008, 05:08 PM

Also if I get one more fag on my front porch ringing my doorbell campaigning for Obamccain when I'm hungover on a Saturday morning, I'm going to power puke right on their shoes!

Ole · 10-30-2008, 05:22 PM

Just curious, how do you know they are fags? (or has the meaning of that word changed in the past 20 years?)

Login




Remember me Lost Password?