• 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.

Ron Paul supporters, you should actually be supporting Obama right now

The LAST thing I want to see is Obama with a perceived mandate. He's already arrogant enough, much like his predecessor.

Thus my argument for a 3rd party. Not voting is not acceptable. A decent 3rd party showing will send a bit of a message to the current owners.
 
In that regard, we're similar. The main point I want to bring up however, is that unless implemented in some fashion to the US population as a whole, third party voting is massively ineffective.

Not so. Third parties make policy happen. To get more votes, the major two parties have to start adopting third party policies. If they want less people to vote for third parties, they need to take on third parties' beloved policies. Here are a few examples of how this works:


Women's Right to Vote
Both the Prohibition and Socialist Parties promoted women's suffrage during the late 1800's. By 1916, both Republicans and Democrats supported it and by 1920, the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote had been ratified.

Child Labor Laws
The Socialist Party first advocated laws establishing minimum ages and limiting hours of work for American children in 1904. The Keating-Owen Act established such laws in 1916.

Immigration Restrictions
The Immigration Act of 1924 came about as a result of support by the Populist Party starting as early as the early 1890's.

Reduction of Working Hours
You can thank the Populist and Socialist Parties for the 40-hour work week. Their support for reduced working hours during the 1890's led to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Income Tax
In the 1890's, the Populist and Socialist Parties supported a "progressive" tax system that would base a person's tax liability on their amount of income. The idea led to ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913.

Social Security
The Socialist Party also supported a fund to provide temporary compensation for the unemployed in the late 1920's. The idea led to the creation of laws establishing unemployment insurance and the Social Security Act of 1935.

"Tough on Crime"
In 1968, the American Independent Party and its presidential candidate George Wallace advocated "getting tough on crime." The Republican Party adopted the idea in its platform and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 was the result. (George Wallace won 46 electoral votes in the 1968 election. This was the highest number of electoral votes collected by a third party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt, running for the Progressive Party in 1912, won 88 votes.)​
 
Not so. Third parties make policy happen. To get more votes, the major two parties have to start adopting third party policies. If they want less people to vote for third parties, they need to take on third parties' beloved policies. Here are a few examples of how this works:


Women's Right to Vote
Both the Prohibition and Socialist Parties promoted women's suffrage during the late 1800's. By 1916, both Republicans and Democrats supported it and by 1920, the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote had been ratified.

Child Labor Laws
The Socialist Party first advocated laws establishing minimum ages and limiting hours of work for American children in 1904. The Keating-Owen Act established such laws in 1916.

Immigration Restrictions
The Immigration Act of 1924 came about as a result of support by the Populist Party starting as early as the early 1890's.

Reduction of Working Hours
You can thank the Populist and Socialist Parties for the 40-hour work week. Their support for reduced working hours during the 1890's led to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Income Tax
In the 1890's, the Populist and Socialist Parties supported a "progressive" tax system that would base a person's tax liability on their amount of income. The idea led to ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913.

Social Security
The Socialist Party also supported a fund to provide temporary compensation for the unemployed in the late 1920's. The idea led to the creation of laws establishing unemployment insurance and the Social Security Act of 1935.

"Tough on Crime"
In 1968, the American Independent Party and its presidential candidate George Wallace advocated "getting tough on crime." The Republican Party adopted the idea in its platform and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 was the result. (George Wallace won 46 electoral votes in the 1968 election. This was the highest number of electoral votes collected by a third party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt, running for the Progressive Party in 1912, won 88 votes.)​

In order for third party platforms to be adopted, they have to be suported by a voting bloc, particularly one that normally votes for the party. So even if your vote will not impact the election per say, you do send a strong message.

Why do you think the republicans have adopted a libertarian economic platform the past few years? Because without it, they wouldn't have a voter base left to speak of.
 
In order for third party platforms to be adopted, they have to be suported by a voting bloc, particularly one that normally votes for the party. So even if your vote will not impact the election per say, you do send a strong message.

Why do you think the republicans have adopted a libertarian economic platform the past few years? Because without it, they wouldn't have a voter base left to speak of.

The GOP unfortunately is being found out by Libertarians, and anyone else with their eyes open, to only provide lip service to the libertarian platform. The fact that they made their policies they fronted in practice mostly socially oriented, and that they spend every bit as much as dems when they have the power... their fiscally conservative base is eroding... as it very well should.

On another note... Libertarians are rather an easy read because they have a straight forward platform. I kind of chuckle when I see people describe themselves as "libertarian-right"... that to me just means "I'm a republican who, since GW Bush, is just too embarrassed to say I'm a Republican. Although I still contort myself into thinking that somehow I believe in social conservatism and liberty at the same time." which is entirely impossible.
 
Last edited:
So basically as a libertarian I should support Obama because the republicans are just like the democrats?

Here is a better, less retarded view. If I vote I will vote for someone that I believe in like Ron Paul.
 
Well, you have the right idea but for the wrong reasons. The reason libertarians should vote for Obama is to speed the inevitable collapse of the welfare state. You want a leftist in power when the crap hits the fan, so the failure can be seen for what it is--a failure of ideology.

Sadly that won't work. The ideas he is pushing has failed many times over by now all around the world throughout time and it hasn't caused anyone at all to think twice.
 
Not so. Third parties make policy happen. To get more votes, the major two parties have to start adopting third party policies. If they want less people to vote for third parties, they need to take on third parties' beloved policies. Here are a few examples of how this works:


Women's Right to Vote
Both the Prohibition and Socialist Parties promoted women's suffrage during the late 1800's. By 1916, both Republicans and Democrats supported it and by 1920, the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote had been ratified.

Child Labor Laws
The Socialist Party first advocated laws establishing minimum ages and limiting hours of work for American children in 1904. The Keating-Owen Act established such laws in 1916.

Immigration Restrictions
The Immigration Act of 1924 came about as a result of support by the Populist Party starting as early as the early 1890's.

Reduction of Working Hours
You can thank the Populist and Socialist Parties for the 40-hour work week. Their support for reduced working hours during the 1890's led to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Income Tax
In the 1890's, the Populist and Socialist Parties supported a "progressive" tax system that would base a person's tax liability on their amount of income. The idea led to ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913.

Social Security
The Socialist Party also supported a fund to provide temporary compensation for the unemployed in the late 1920's. The idea led to the creation of laws establishing unemployment insurance and the Social Security Act of 1935.

"Tough on Crime"
In 1968, the American Independent Party and its presidential candidate George Wallace advocated "getting tough on crime." The Republican Party adopted the idea in its platform and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 was the result. (George Wallace won 46 electoral votes in the 1968 election. This was the highest number of electoral votes collected by a third party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt, running for the Progressive Party in 1912, won 88 votes.)​

Valid point. :applaud :ind: :applaud
 
Apparently not any more than you are willing to reject a man's vote if it isn't for who you want it to be. You need to get the fact that his vote is his... not yours. So you shouldn't get hacked over how he spends his vote. That is the root of what liberty means.

Thing is, you're wholly wrong on this one. I'm not trying to tell him what to do with his vote, merely having a discussion concerning our reasoning for placing our votes where we do. You've read my posts, no? If so, then I'm sure you're merely confused here.
 
Has anyone other than me noticed the increasing apparent desperation from the left side of the isle in the last week or so? This statement:

Come out for Obama in droves. You know that no matter how many times Fox News says it, he's not going to destroy the nation. All the things you don't like about him are the same things you didn't like about Bush and won't like about Romney. Let the Republican party know that they can't win without you. Show them the price for their betrayal.

in the OP sure seems evidence of such…or maybe it is just me.
 
Well, you have the right idea but for the wrong reasons. The reason libertarians should vote for Obama is to speed the inevitable collapse of the welfare state. You want a leftist in power when the crap hits the fan, so the failure can be seen for what it is--a failure of ideology.

And arguably causing catastrophe merely to prove your side right. If financial and social collapse occurs, you will have your hollow libertarian-infested victory, while others go hungry and die off.
 
3rd party all the way. The two big parties need to know that people are not afraid to go beyond Democrat or Republicans. Maybe it will open their eyes to the fact they actually need to fix our problems instead of bicker and spar over party lines.
 
And arguably causing catastrophe merely to prove your side right. If financial and social collapse occurs, you will have your hollow libertarian-infested victory, while others go hungry and die off.

He will honestly be causing nothing. The people that support idiotic ideals will get what they really want and see what it really causes. They could just look at a history book, but since they refuse, lets try it over again and see if they get the point.

At first I wasn't liking the idea, but on second thought it looks pretty good.
 
And arguably causing catastrophe merely to prove your side right. If financial and social collapse occurs, you will have your hollow libertarian-infested victory, while others go hungry and die off.
That is going to happen anyway. It is just a matter of when. The welfare state needs to be dismantled. Neither party is advocating that. The idea that if we elect into power an efficiency expert for the welfare state--Romney--limited government, free markets and human liberty will return as the dominant ideology is just false. "Saving Medicare and Social Secuity for future generations" is hardly a battle cry for liberty. It simply enslaves future generations to bankrupt programs and a bankrupt ideology.
 
I can't support you on this.

It's important to vote 3rd party so even in victory, the Democraps stay moderate. A 3rd party voter is a true independent. Let them recognize this and temper their radical behaviors.

He will honestly be causing nothing. The people that support idiotic ideals will get what they really want and see what it really causes. They could just look at a history book, but since they refuse, lets try it over again and see if they get the point.

At first I wasn't liking the idea, but on second thought it looks pretty good.
 
And arguably causing catastrophe merely to prove your side right. If financial and social collapse occurs, you will have your hollow libertarian-infested victory, while others go hungry and die off.

Financial and social collapse doesn't happen that quickly, and it doesn't happen just because of who is elected president. The collapse we're working towards now has been in the works since the first time someone thought up trickle down economics.
 
Yeah...

If Romney is the 50 pound guerilla I dislike, Obama is the 100 pound one. If I want to send a message I'll vote for Johnson, who I at least agree with and would be comfortable putting my support behind. I wouldn't vote for a guy who I think is even worse than the party I want to send a message to and who I absolutely could not principle place my support behind
 
Back
Top Bottom