• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Alternative candidates

MarineTpartier

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
2,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I haven't seen this thread yet. If there is one, someone please direct me to it. With a lack of good candidates this year, I have been forced to look else where to cast my vote. Personally, I like RJ Harris from Oklahoma. He combines the Libertarian ethos of foreign policy, small gov't, and aboloshing of the Fed with my belief that the Federal gov't should be involved in abortion legislation. Here's a link to his website. Anyone else have an independent, third party, or obscure candidate they're looking at? It so, post their name and a link to their website here. Thanks.
2012 U.S. Presidential Candidate | RJ Harris for President
 
Last edited:
Hare said:
Buddy Roemer, Gary Johnson, and Paul are all better than the current choices in my humble opinion. Both "small government" candidates who combine some solid ideas from both sides of the spectrum.

Gary Johnson 2012
Buddy Roemer for President | America Needs Buddy for President 2012
Click to expand...

I like Johnson, however, the Libertarian belief that abortion should be left to the citizens choice is what always keeps me from voting for one of them. RJ Harris is one of the few I've seen who says the Federal gov't should dictate this issue. His method of doing it is great as well. He proposes that we put verbeage in the constitution that makes it specific about when a person is a person. By doing that, it would negate Roe v Wade.
Okay, enough of that. If I keep going, this will turn into another thread hijacked by the abortion argument. There are enough of those lol.
 
I guess Paul could be considered an alternative still lol.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Really? Why's that?
Click to expand...

me too. Because his #1 issue is getting money out of politics. This is my #1 issue.

As long as money plays as big of a role as it currently does, getting any of the other policies I like to happen are practically impossible because my policies I like don't fund political campaigns.
 
poweRob said:
me too. Because his #1 issue is getting money out of politics. This is my #1 issue.

As long as money plays as big of a role as it currently does, getting any of the other policies I like to happen are practically impossible because my policies I like don't fund political campaigns.
Click to expand...

I'll research him a bit more then. Also a big issue for me. Case in point, a loser like Romney even having a chance because he has so much money.
 
One of the joys of voting third party is you know you're guy isn't going to win, so you can be a little less concerned about having him line up perfectly with your main issues and instead use your vote to send a general message. I'm a pro-life libertarian, but I'd vote for a pro-choice LP candidate because I don't have to worry about him ever winning. I'm just sending a message that the two mainstream candidates are unacceptable to me and that we need to move in a more libertarian direction.
 
Psychoclown said:
One of the joys of voting third party is you know you're guy isn't going to win, so you can be a little less concerned about having him line up perfectly with your main issues and instead use your vote to send a general message. I'm a pro-life libertarian, but I'd vote for a pro-choice LP candidate because I don't have to worry about him ever winning. I'm just sending a message that the two mainstream candidates are unacceptable to me and that we need to move in a more libertarian direction.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of that. I want my candidate to fit my top 3 views to a T. My top 3 are 1) Pro-life and willing to enforce it 2) Stop the military intervention campaigns of our past POTUS's (that directly affects me) 3) Tackle run away entitlements and reform them. No fiscal conservative can call him/herself one if they don't tackle that first. After that, I have a little leeway.
 
poweRob said:
me too. Because his #1 issue is getting money out of politics. This is my #1 issue.

As long as money plays as big of a role as it currently does, getting any of the other policies I like to happen are practically impossible because my policies I like don't fund political campaigns.
Click to expand...

Same here. I may not agree with much else he would do, but this is the most important thing.

In addition, Roemer has good state government, federal government, and business experience, which is unique among all of the candidates.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Same here. I may not agree with much else he would do, but this is the most important thing.

In addition, Roemer has good state government, federal government, and business experience, which is unique among all of the candidates.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The more I look into his background and accomplishments, the more I like him. See, why can't a guy that is so unifying be popular? What did he do or not do that he isn't getting the attention he should get or the support of the "mainstream"? You know, people like Trump and Ann Coulter.............:lamo
 
MarineTpartier said:
Agreed. The more I look into his background and accomplishments, the more I like him. See, why can't a guy that is so unifying be popular? What did he do or not do that he isn't getting the attention he should get or the support of the "mainstream"? You know, people like Trump and Ann Coulter.............:lamo
Click to expand...

I have my own theory on that and it is because he was running for the GOP candidacy and his #1 priority is getting money out of politics. I think the GOP establishment would not like this at all. If he were running as a Dem, I think he'd get the same treatment of being marginalized and ignored by the party establishment. They both want the money in politics. He is the devil to both of them merely by trying to make this an issue.
 
poweRob said:
I have my own theory on that and it is because he was running for the GOP candidacy and his #1 priority is getting money out of politics. I think the GOP establishment would not like this at all. If he were running as a Dem, I think he'd get the same treatment of being marginalized and ignored by the party establishment. They both want the money in politics. He is the devil to both of them merely by trying to make this an issue.
Click to expand...

So, you think he got blackballed? I can see that.
 
MarineTpartier said:
So, you think he got blackballed? I can see that.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Corporate media doesn't want to see that message prevail either. TV ads make them a tremendously great benefactor to the big money flow in politics.
 
poweRob said:
Pretty much. Corporate media doesn't want to see that message prevail either. TV ads make them a tremendously great benefactor to the big money flow in politics.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of college football lol.
 
Its too late.
The Republicans made a terrible mistake asserting from the start that Romney would be front runner and the man-to-beat. The only ones left are even worse losers, each trying to play to fringe elements of the Republicans.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Agreed. The more I look into his background and accomplishments, the more I like him. See, why can't a guy that is so unifying be popular? What did he do or not do that he isn't getting the attention he should get or the support of the "mainstream"? You know, people like Trump and Ann Coulter.............:lamo
Click to expand...

He wasn't invited to a single debate ... out of the 20 that have been held so far. Apparently they have varying standards about where you have to be in the polls in order to qualify. It would have been interesting to see if he could have picked up steam with a couple debate opportunities, but we'll never know.
 
AdamT said:
He wasn't invited to a single debate ... out of the 20 that have been held so far. Apparently they have varying standards about where you have to be in the polls in order to qualify. It would have been interesting to see if he could have picked up steam with a couple debate opportunities, but we'll never know.
Click to expand...

I saw an interview a bit back with Roemer bitching about how he met the standards they held for the debates then they altered the entry standards. I know this happens because this is what they did to Nader when I was working on his campaign. The goal-posts are always moving and they dictate to the public who is and isn't viable because they know that when someone is in the debates, it makes their candidacy viable. As proven by Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura.
 
joko104 said:
Its too late.
The Republicans made a terrible mistake asserting from the start that Romney would be front runner and the man-to-beat. The only ones left are even worse losers, each trying to play to fringe elements of the Republicans.
Click to expand...

Republicans and certainly Tea Partiers didnt assert that. The media did. The DC beltway establishment may have favored Romney but voters dont see to be falling in line. Thats a good thing in my opinion.
 
I'd say the 35%-40% that always seem to vote for Romney in all of these polls are the ones that vote for the popular guy because they think (R) still means conservative. About 40% seem to just be flopping around amongst Santorum and Gingrich because they know Romney isn't a conservative, Santorum and Gingrich aren't much better, but they don't want to vote third party or for a obscure candidate. And then there's the die hard 15%-20% Paulites. All in all, Romney will win because that's what the media tells us and the 35%-40% he gets can't think for themselves. The 40% between Santorum and Gingrich are trying to figure it out but they're scared to take the plunge and stop supporting the establishment. They are the "Tea Partiers" that think they are real Tea Partiers but are actually social conservatives who don't know what the Tea Party really is. And then there's the real "Tea Partiers" supporting Paul because he is everything the Tea Party started out as.
 
I think Donald Trump has some really good ideas. He's strong on China, which I like. Too bad he's such a d-bag.

I'd consider voting for him, though.
 
Peter Grimm said:
I think Donald Trump has some really good ideas. He's strong on China, which I like. Too bad he's such a d-bag.

I'd consider voting for him, though.
Click to expand...

This post has rendered me speechless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom