Good news for everyone - we have hope

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by Appliancedude

Your wrong. It supports two period. Look I'm gonna try and make this as easy to understand as possible.

Draw a horizontal line and put a D at the left and a R at the right. Now draw a vertical line right in the middle. Now everyone in the world falls somewhere on that line. YES I KNOW there is also a up and down here too, but at its basic its left vs right. Now we have a candidate on each side. All the 3rd partys, it doesn't matter which, (green peace, peace and freedom to the left) (Libertarian, reform party to the right) have a candidate. Now by miracle or cash one of those candidates happens to become a big name and becomes a power player (ie Ross Perot). That person is gonna siphon off enough people to give the other guy the win. Bush 41 and Perot combined had 53% of the vote. Bush could have one if Perot had not been running.

Do you get it yet. Doesn't matter who the 3rd party is, they are gonna siphon off enough votes from the guy whose on the similar side. A 3RD PARTY GUY CAN'T WIN. He just makes the guy on the same side as him to lose. If Nader had had more money in 96 we could have got Bob Dole. Nader just didn't have the cash to siphon off enough votes from Clinton.

Now if your proposing, backing a 3rd party guy on the left, to siphon enough votes from Obama, then I'm with you 100%. Otherwise voting for anyone on the right side of that line other than Romney is pissing your vote away. I don't like him either, but thats who we have to back.

What is second place good for? What did Dole win in '96? The Electoral College supports one party at a time. Just the winner. It doesn't matter if you finished second or seven-hundredth. Losing is losing.

A third party becomes one of the big two by winning. That's how the Republican Party came to be one of the bigs. That's how another is going to replace them.

Selleck and Cuban both have libertarian leanings. A libertarian candidate or party (not the Libertarian Party) should do a pretty good job of stealing off votes from both sides of your imaginary line. Don't think for a second that the Republicans are all about freedom and the Democrats are all about control; that's a false and dangerous view.

Originally Posted by Appliancedude

Josh, I really don't want to turn this thread into a Ron Paul argument.

First I don't give a damn who we buy off if it keeps us safe. And by the way we aren't doing a very good job at it. And if we truly wanted oil cheap, we'd drill for our own. Its the left in this country who have prevented that. The poor little children would be just fine if we used our own oil. Hey can we use that as an add for drilling here.

Seriously? You're clearly too self-centered to understand what I'm trying to say, but I'll say it anyway for the benefit of other readers.

You think we're "safer" because the US invaded Panama (1989) to make sure we didn't lose the economic benefit of the Panama Canal, then a few months later invaded Iraq for doing the exact same thing we had done in securing for themselves the oil reserves of Kuwait? I don't think it's about safety at all. I think it's all about money.

Second, try to keep up with the conversation. I'm asking for the name of a 3rd party person that we should vote for right now. You give me a actor, a left wing talk show host, a moderate RINO who supported Obama, and a Basketball team owner. Great choices bud. You are arguing for a 3rd party. Not once did I read where you were advocting for a left wing 3rd party. That I'm all for. I'm asking who WE should vote for.

Keep up with the conversation? How about you ask what you mean?

You asked for "viable." And I gave you people from across the spectrum who could be viable candidates if they tried.

• Ronald Reagan was an actor before he decided to enter politics.
• Oprah would have the vote of millions of housewives before she even came up with policies.
• Military leaders have historically won elections, no matter what political leaning (Washington, Jackson, Grant, Eisenhower).
• Nearly any self-made billionaire has the intelligence and leadership experience. I just named the "cool" one because that wouldn't work against him.

If any of those people wanted to run for president, they could do it under any party name they chose. Yeah, it's late for 2012. Too late? Probably.
But I'll still say that voting your conscience is never a wasted vote. It's maybe the only one that's not.

Now as for Paul. I'm gonna give you a specific example of why he is wrong on foreign policy and I would like you to tell me why I'm wrong and he's right. Ready?

Pauls position on Iran is that the US should not be intervening and trying to keep them from getting nuclear weapons. That is his stated opinion. He also stated that if they aquired nuclear weapons it wouldn't be a big enough deal to warrant intervention. And that we could deal with them the way we dealt with the Soviet Union during the cold war, with deterrence.
The biggest problem with the Iranians possessing nuclear weapons is that classical deterrence wont work. The soviets were communists, and by and large atheists. The last thing an atheist wants to do is die in a mushroom cloud. No afterlife. No plus side there. Iran on the other hand has been a Islamic Revolutionary state for over 30 years. They get 70 virgins if they toss one at us and die when we toss 500 back.

Now tell me why you and Paul think its ok for Iran to have nuclear weapons please. Tell me why we should stand down and no longer intervene to keep them from acquiring them. Tell me Josh why I and the majority of our country is wrong, that we should just let Iran be, and why you and Ron Paul are correct.

Let's start off with this, because you've already said that you don't want to turn this into a Ron Paul thread, and I agree. Ron Paul is a Republican. Always has been. Never been a third party candidate. Never been a third party backer. He's a Republican through and through. He's going to vote for Romney/Ryan. And I am not particularly a Ron Paul supporter (though I did vote for him in the primary),

Now to quickly (and probably unsatisfyingly) answer your policy question.

Iran has the capability to deliver a payload such as a nuclear weapon to the US. They do have those missiles. No question.
We have anti-ballistic missile defense systems. The way to overcome our system is through sheer numbers (such as five hundred missiles coming at us at once). And that ain't gonna happen, at least not from Iran.

So we aren't in danger from it. So it's not an issue for our military to deal with.
Who is in danger? Israel. Turkey. Egypt. India. Germany. Russia (they're allies of sorts, but that doesn't mean they're on the same page).
Why do we believe that it's our responsibility to foot the bill and to fight a fight for someone else who can fight their own fight and pay their own bill? We don't have to be the first to the fight on every fight.

And personally I believe that our stopping foreign aid payments to all countries would be good for Israel. We give something like six times as much to Israel's enemies as we do to Israel itself.

[Appliancedude]

Josh, for the most we agree. I agree our country has made some very bad policys and decisions in the past.

Now, I did ask what I meant. I asked for a viable candidate other than Paul that we should vote for. I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant.

You still don't want to understand what I'm saying about the electoral collage. You either don't get it or refuse to and I'm tired of arguing it with you. Vote for your third party guy, get all your buddies to also and we will deal with Obama for another term. Ok, I hope you get what you want from it.

For the rest of you that have half a brain cell and can understand simple logic. The third party guy is gonna be either on the left or the right. If he's on the right, he will split the vote from the republicans and leave the democrat to win ala Ross Perot. If the 3rd party guy is on the left he will split the vote of the democrats and leave the republican to win. Except the democrats don't play fair, and use fraud to keep the 3rd party guy out of many states, just ask Ralph Nader. It is that simple. I've laid it out multiple times. I hope some of you understand, its plain some of you refuse to.

And Josh, I now think your a nut too, since you think Iran having nuclear weapons is ok and we are not in danger. I guess a suitcase nuke and our broken border problem never crossed your mind right. And hell let them nuke our allys, why the hell should we defend them. Let them fight their own battles. Why should we secure our interest abroad. Nah let them nuke Israel off the map and leave us with no ally in the middle east. Then its just us half baked Christians vs the entire Muslim middle east. Brilliant strategy there slick.

Now Grump, thanks for giving me a viable guy I can get behind. Now, so it will make Josh happy, get the guy to change party status, so we can rally behind him and overthrow the republican party as a 3rd party candidate

[Appliancedude]

Hey Josh, http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012...-one-american/
Flashbang just put this on another thread.

But hey no worries. They definitely wont bring a nuke with them ever. You see they crossed their hearts and hoped to diiiieeeeeee. Oh dear. Maybe we ought to worry.

[CampingJosh]

There isn't a viable third party for this November. If you were asking that, you should have made it more obviously rhetorical. That's why I didn't name Johnson even though he'll get the third most votes.

The money the minor parties take in each year isn't even close to what the big two do each month, and money is the only kind of speech that matters in the US political system anymore. That's why the viable people I named up above were mostly billionaires.

I'll be done discussing the Electoral College thing, too, though I don't cede the point.

And please tell me that your solution is to bomb the hell out of a country halfway around the world rather than fixing our porous border.

You can't do isolationism halfway. Quit screwing in their countries and quit letting them into ours. Close the military bases around the world and put those troops on the borders. The borders would be secured--completely--in a week or so.

[Appliancedude]

Originally Posted by CampingJosh

There isn't a viable third party for this November. If you were asking that, you should have made it more obviously rhetorical. That's why I didn't name Johnson even though he'll get the third most votes.

The money the minor parties take in each year isn't even close to what the big two do each month, and money is the only kind of speech that matters in the US political system anymore. That's why the viable people I named up above were mostly billionaires.

I'll be done discussing the Electoral College thing, too, though I don't cede the point.

And please tell me that your solution is to bomb the hell out of a country halfway around the world rather than fixing our porous border.

You can't do isolationism halfway. Quit screwing in their countries and quit letting them into ours. Close the military bases around the world and put those troops on the borders. The borders would be secured--completely--in a week or so.

I'm not an isolationist Josh. I believe someone has to be the peacekeeper. Someone has to keep the Kim Jong Ills, and the Ahmadinejad's of the world in line. Are we perfect? Far from it. Every country we took over we gave back though. We gave Japan back we gave Germany back, we saved France and could have kept it too if we wanted it, who would have stopped us. We even gave Iraq back. Yes we maintain a presence there. Yep, sure do. Who's gonna keep them in line if we pack up all are bags and bring everyone home? Who's gonna enforce the world truce that would have to be put in place? Its a dirty job, but someones got to do it.

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by Appliancedude

I'm not an isolationist Josh. I believe someone has to be the peacekeeper. Someone has to keep the Kim Jong Ills, and the Ahmadinejad's of the world in line. Are we perfect? Far from it. Every country we took over we gave back though. We gave Japan back we gave Germany back, we saved France and could have kept it too if we wanted it, who would have stopped us. We even gave Iraq back. Yes we maintain a presence there. Yep, sure do. Who's gonna keep them in line if we pack up all are bags and bring everyone home? Who's gonna enforce the world truce that would have to be put in place? Its a dirty job, but someones got to do it.

I'm not sure I'm an isolationist, either. I'm still working out my views, and conversations like this help me to do so. I actually can be convinced on a lot of topics.

But Ron Paul definitely is an isolationist, and it's a view that does (at least in theory) work. You can't argue against it while assuming that it's only implemented halfway. We close our bases elsewhere, and we close access to the US by foreign citizens. Combined with a strong navy and a missile defense shield, secure borders would ensure the safety of American citizens while they remained in the US.

I'm not convinced that our imperialism really does make the world a safer place.

[Appliancedude]

I'm not convinced we are imperialists. We have never kept a country that we invaded. The Japanese were and are imperialists. So were the Greeks the Romans, the Byzantine, the Ottomans, and the Persians to name but a few. They all were trying to build empires. Tell me, when was the last time we invaded Mexico. I mean if we were any of the above imperialistic nations we would be invading Mexico daily taking their land as our own. Instead they invade us daily.

I don't buy the whole American empire concept.

Sorry man, I believe the best defense is a good offense. I believe we need bases around the world for quick deployment.

And I know isolationism sounds good in theory. But so does Socialism. In theory its great. In practical concept, it doesn't work with a *&%#

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by Appliancedude

I'm not convinced we are imperialists. We have never kept a country that we invaded. The Japanese were and are imperialists. So were the Greeks the Romans, the Byzantine, the Ottomans, and the Persians to name but a few. They all were trying to build empires. Tell me, when was the last time we invaded Mexico. I mean if we were any of the above imperialistic nations we would be invading Mexico daily taking their land as our own. Instead they invade us daily.

I don't buy the whole American empire concept.

Imperialists of the past didn't want land either; it was just a means to an end. They wanted control, safe passage, and tribute.

Today, we don't need the land (and the hassles involved) to get what we want. Nobody screws with American citizens internationally. We do dictate international relations however we choose. And tribute? It's a big harder to see, but it's definitely there. Wonder why OPEC hasn't shut us off since the 1970s even though they clearly hate us? It's because we own the Royal House of Saud. We keep local dictators in power, and they do as little as they have to do to make sure we do keep them in power. It's a pretty close match to the Roman system of governors.

The Cold War was about imperialism. Vietnam? The whole point was to keep one of our subsidiaries' territories under control. It was an American empire vs. a Russian Communist empire.

Seriously, read that book. Not just for the eye-opening, either. It's a genuinely good read.

And I know isolationism sounds good in theory. But so does Socialism. In theory its great. In practical concept, it doesn't work with a *&%#

We have numerous examples of failed socialism. Where are the examples of failed isolationism? Is Switzerland struggling?

[Appliancedude]

Originally Posted by CampingJosh

Seriously, read that book. Not just for the eye-opening, either. It's a genuinely good read.

No thanks on the book. I have no intention of reading a book blaming the entire worlds problem on the US. I get enough of that from Obama. We are gonna have to agree to disagree Josh. Frankly I don't have the time to keep getting on here and arguing with you. neither one of us is gonna budge. And I have better things to do with my time. Later bud

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by Appliancedude

No thanks on the book. I have no intention of reading a book blaming the entire worlds problem on the US. I get enough of that from Obama. We are gonna have to agree to disagree Josh. Frankly I don't have the time to keep getting on here and arguing with you. neither one of us is gonna budge. And I have better things to do with my time. Later bud

You're right. If you refuse to look at the evidence, then we will have to agree to disagree. And I genuinely don't care if you think Paul is a nut; he's not running for president anymore.

I enjoyed the conversation. Maybe we'll do it again sometime in a Remington vs. Mossberg shotgun thread.

[therewolf]

We US gun owners are 140 million+ strong.

That's over 10 million more, TOTAL, than voted in the last

presidential election.

Let's send B.O. to the BACK of the

unemployment line.

[WHSmithIV]

The absolute easiest way to get Obama out is to vote him out. Everyone, keep spreading the news - every democrat foible, every screw up, figures et. al. Economic situation, unemployment statistics, lack of job qualifications. Spread it all over the place on the internet. Drown out the liberals. For every one message they post, make sure 10 messages get posted about the Obama evil doings. Get the message out for the conservative vote so that they ALL go vote. Poison minds of the voters who would vote for him enough and many of them will be so disgusted that they simply won't go vote. It may be so that rather than vote conservative, they won't go vote at all - and that's fine. Then Obozo loses.

[Gun Geezer]

I don't think any of you understand today's politics. Nobody wins today's elections, they buy them. No third party candidate would have, or be able to raise the funds to buy the office. The only reason Romney got the nod was that he, out of all the Republicans, was the only one who had the money and backing to out spend Obozo.

I believe I read that the winner of the presidential election over the last 50 yrs. was the one who spent the most money. Cash seems to trump good intentions, political parties and philosophy.

[WHSmithIV]

Originally Posted by Gun Geezer

I don't think any of you understand today's politics. Nobody wins today's elections, they buy them. No third party candidate would have, or be able to raise the funds to buy the office. The only reason Romney got the nod was that he, out of all the Republicans, was the only one who had the money and backing to out spend Obozo.

I believe I read that the winner of the presidential election over the last 50 yrs. was the one who spent the most money. Cash seems to trump good intentions, political parties and philosophy.

Of course the elections are 'bought' - but they are bought with advertising and spending money to hold rallies etc. They are bought by spending enough to convince enough people to vote for them. You can't have 2 billion in a bank account and simply go and buy the spot as president at an auction as the highest bidder.

So you want Obozo out, we have to vote him out.

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by Gun Geezer

I don't think any of you understand today's politics. Nobody wins today's elections, they buy them. No third party candidate would have, or be able to raise the funds to buy the office. The only reason Romney got the nod was that he, out of all the Republicans, was the only one who had the money and backing to out spend Obozo.

I believe I read that the winner of the presidential election over the last 50 yrs. was the one who spent the most money. Cash seems to trump good intentions, political parties and philosophy.

We went over that in this thread already.

Originally Posted by CampingJosh

... money is the only kind of speech that matters in the US political system anymore. That's why the viable people I named up above were mostly billionaires.

A billionaire with a conviction can make a huge change in American politics. Ross Perot did it.
And one with a few billionaire friends with him could win.

[WHSmithIV]

A billionaire with a conviction can make a huge change in American politics. Ross Perot did it.
And one with a few billionaire friends with him could win.

This is probably true. With enough advertising - public appearances etc. enough money would quite likely get the voter to vote for you. Win enough states and you win the election.

[ryan42]

Originally Posted by Double D

The ONLY reason there was any success during the clinton years is because of a conservative controlled house and senate. He chose to work with them. Without that, nothing.

I agree,im glad you said it.

[Gun Geezer]

Originally Posted by WHSmithIV

Of course the elections are 'bought' - but they are bought with advertising and spending money to hold rallies etc. They are bought by spending enough to convince enough people to vote for them. You can't have 2 billion in a bank account and simply go and buy the spot as president at an auction as the highest bidder.

So you want Obozo out, we have to vote him out.

And I suppose you can't by a vacant senate seat in Illinois from the former governor for cash either. Money talks,.......!

[steve4102]

Originally Posted by WHSmithIV

This is probably true. With enough advertising - public appearances etc. enough money would quite likely get the voter to vote for you. Win enough states and you win the election.

Sorry no.
Not enough time for massive public appearances, to much real estate to cover with only a few months.

Not enough money in the world to get past the MSM. Any third party candidate that would upset the Liberal machine would get crucified on every news channel, newspaper and magazine, he wouldn't stand a chance of winning no matter how much money he waisted. The MSM would however endorse any candidate that would split the Rep vote up enough to further the Liberal Machine.

Lets face it, a third party would split the republican/Independent vote leaving the Democrat Party whole and hand the country over to them on a Silver Platter. If you want replace the Republican Party, great, replace it, but splitting it up into to factions is a death sentence for this country. Unless of course you are a Socialist, then a third party is a good thing.

[steve4102]

Originally Posted by Gun Geezer

And I suppose you can't by a vacant senate seat in Illinois from the former governor for cash either. Money talks,.......!

Yeah, how'd that work out for him?

[Appliancedude]

Originally Posted by CampingJosh

You're right. If you refuse to look at the evidence, then we will have to agree to disagree. And I genuinely don't care if you think Paul is a nut; he's not running for president anymore.

I enjoyed the conversation. Maybe we'll do it again sometime in a Remington vs. Mossberg shotgun thread.

a book written by a socialist is not evidence, its propaganda. after I found out he's a contributor to the Huff post, and a regular speaker at greenfest, I can safely make the assumption he's gone socialist. If you find what he's saying to be evidence of a bad US empire, whatever.

It was fun, but I'm tired of it. And by the way, I say Remington

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by Appliancedude

a book written by a socialist is not evidence, its propaganda. after I found out he's a contributor to the Huff post, and a regular speaker at greenfest, I can safely make the assumption he's gone socialist. If you find what he's saying to be evidence of a bad US empire, whatever.

He's been on the inside. I think it's at least worth hearing out.

It was fun, but I'm tired of it. And by the way, I say Remington

Well, we're not going to argue there! The Remington is clearly superior.