• 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.

Fall On Your Sword, Libertarians, And Vote For Romney

But this is just nonsense. Obama is not out to destroy America any more than Bush was and it does not appear he is doing as good a job of it. I don't agree with the man on much of anything but the ridiculous over the top attacks don't appeal.

Agreed.

I do not understand people saying such things about either candidate.

I think they would both do terrible jobs as POTUS.

But I do not for a second think they have a specific agenda of destroying America.

I see ZERO reasonable evidence of that.
 
So I implore you, to look deep within, way past any superficial ideological idealism .. and realize what you must do, for the good of the country, for the good of all your fellow American citizens: fall on your sword, and vote for Romney.

No. And if YOU lose, then maybe you should try something different next time.
 
No. And if YOU lose, then maybe you should try something different next time.
Be as obstinate against reasonable common sense as you're compelled.

But if Obama wins, when you realize he's severely damaging America, causing great harm to American citizens, like the Perot's of 1992 and the Greens of 2000, you Libertarians too will wail and gnash your teeth, wishing you had not been so ideologically obstinate.
 
Be as obstinate against reasonable common sense as you're compelled.

But if Obama wins, when you realize he's severely damaging America, causing great harm to American citizens, like the Perot's of 1992 and the Greens of 2000, you Libertarians too will wail and gnash your teeth, wishing you had not been so ideologically obstinate.

Most libertarians are not easily swayed by guilt trips, especially by those that others try to place on us. This country is going to come up against a brick wall, no matter who is in the white house, because our economy is in the crapper, and our social debts are uncontrollable, and will break us eventually. Democrats, Republicans, it doesn't really much matter at this point. One of them will take us off the cliff at a little faster pace than the other.
Trying to convince libertarians that they must vote for someone whom they are ideologically opposed to, amounts to nothing besides emotional coercion. Play that game if you think you must, but play it with someone who is more easily swayed by emotional appeals.
 
Be as obstinate against reasonable common sense as you're compelled.

But if Obama wins, when you realize he's severely damaging America, causing great harm to American citizens, like the Perot's of 1992 and the Greens of 2000, you Libertarians too will wail and gnash your teeth, wishing you had not been so ideologically obstinate.

But again, you lose as well. So maybe you should join us instead.
 
Republicans think they are close to libertarian, but simply they are not even cloae at all. Don't let the hijacked tea party fool you. The tea party might have been close to libertarian for a time but now it is clearly more right than the republicans ever were. The problem is that deaspite all their lip service republicans do not believe in smaller government or less military dominance of the world. In fact they believe in larger government as long as it is government they want. They are also an enemy of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and general social freedoms true libertarians believe in. They are not even for states rights, they are just for passing off the bills to states to free up federal money for their big business friends Just because you want to dump the expe3nse of FEMA onto the states does not mean you are pro-states rights. Just because you want to give the states the ability to be prejudiced and take away the rights of the people without any federal interference does not mean you are for smaller government or liberty at all.

Sorry republicans, but you would hate a true libertarian president just as much as any dem president. And no Glen Beck and everyone on Fix noise is not libertarian in the slightest. About the only thing i can see republicans and libertarians share is gun rights. That does not make republicans libertarians by any sane rational conclusion. it is good that sane and rational are also not near the republican party line. This way they can pretend they are moral, honest, freedom loving people when they clearly have none of those qualities.

It is too bad too because i would actually love to see a true libertarian party become a competing third party. i think they are so different from both the dems and republicans that they would make great competition and real choice for those bothered with both parties. Hell, if we got some real libertarians in election I might just feel like I was voting for a candidate that i believe in instead of voting for the best of two bad opponents.

Libertarians are true republicans.

Don't confuse republicans with RINO's - RINO's are just as bad as progressives.

I'm a Democratic-Republican (think Thomas Jefferson) and/or Classical Liberal or what you would call today a libertarian.

I suppose 100 years ago you could just call me a republican.
 
I implore Republicans to fall on their sword and vote for .. Obama.

I would rather fall on the sword, even if I were a Republican.

As an Independent Conservative, I will be voting for MYSELF for POTUS, and in our Senatorial Race here in Massachuestts I will not be voting for either candidate. I will vote YES on Question #1 (Right to Repair Act), and NO on Questions #2 and #3 (Right to Die) and (Medicinal Marijuana).
 
Most libertarians are not easily swayed by guilt trips, especially by those that others try to place on us. This country is going to come up against a brick wall, no matter who is in the white house, because our economy is in the crapper, and our social debts are uncontrollable, and will break us eventually. Democrats, Republicans, it doesn't really much matter at this point. One of them will take us off the cliff at a little faster pace than the other.
Trying to convince libertarians that they must vote for someone whom they are ideologically opposed to, amounts to nothing besides emotional coercion. Play that game if you think you must, but play it with someone who is more easily swayed by emotional appeals.
I understand that the libertarian ideology compels those with that mindset to falsely imagine that the standard alternatives of Democrat and Republican are essentially the same, that it doesn't matter which of the two is elected, that the substantive result in their administration will be equivalent.

That, however, speaks to the power of ideology to rob people of their common sense, to in essence dumb one down.

This ideologically based denial is necessary to allow the libertarian to vote for a lost cause.

The facts of the matter is that Romney simply will not take us off a cliff at all, and that Obama has essentially promised to take us off a cliff.

There really is that much of a difference between the two candidates, one of whom will win.

I am not a liberal, a Democrat, and I'm not a conservative, a Republican, and I'm not a libertarian or of any other wingish political persuasion; I have no ideological vesting in Romney, no ideological contempt for Obama -- I'm free to look at the matters of fact and make a decision that's in the best interest of America and my fellow citizens.

It's important for readers who pass this way to understand that the more wingish the political ideology, be it liberal, libertarian, conservative, or to the left of liberal and the right conservative, the more it dumbs down those who succumb to it to the real and present obvious realities that plain ol' common sense presents to the rest of us.

It is hugely important this election that Romney wins today.

The facts are all out there on the table, for all to see.

Presenting the damage Obama will do, that's merely the presentation of a fact.

If libertarians don't heed those facts, like the Perot's in 1992 and Greens in 2000, they most certainly will come to self-heap coals of guilt on their own heads, for foolishly succumbing to their ideological mindset and voting Libertarian, thus taking votes away from Romney he needed to win, that condemns us with Obama, and America and their fellow Americans to great suffering under Obama, great suffering that simply will not happen under Romney, as Romney does not suffer the particular America-damaging ideological mindset that Obama does.

The only "guilt trip" libertarians will then be taking if they don't vote for Romney is one of their own ideological making.
 
I understand that the libertarian ideology compels those with that mindset to falsely imagine that the standard alternatives of Democrat and Republican are essentially the same, that it doesn't matter which of the two is elected, that the substantive result in their administration will be equivalent.

That, however, speaks to the power of ideology to rob people of their common sense, to in essence dumb one down.

This ideologically based denial is necessary to allow the libertarian to vote for a lost cause.

The facts of the matter is that Romney simply will not take us off a cliff at all, and that Obama has essentially promised to take us off a cliff.

There really is that much of a difference between the two candidates, one of whom will win.

I am not a liberal, a Democrat, and I'm not a conservative, a Republican, and I'm not a libertarian or of any other wingish political persuasion; I have no ideological vesting in Romney, no ideological contempt for Obama -- I'm free to look at the matters of fact and make a decision that's in the best interest of America and my fellow citizens.

It's important for readers who pass this way to understand that the more wingish the political ideology, be it liberal, libertarian, conservative, or to the left of liberal and the right conservative, the more it dumbs down those who succumb to it to the real and present obvious realities that plain ol' common sense presents to the rest of us.

It is hugely important this election that Romney wins today.

The facts are all out there on the table, for all to see.

Presenting the damage Obama will do, that's merely the presentation of a fact.

If libertarians don't heed those facts, like the Perot's in 1992 and Greens in 2000, they most certainly will come to self-heap coals of guilt on their own heads, for foolishly succumbing to their ideological mindset and voting Libertarian, thus taking votes away from Romney he needed to win, that condemns us with Obama, and America and their fellow Americans to great suffering under Obama, great suffering that simply will not happen under Romney, as Romney does not suffer the particular America-damaging ideological mindset that Obama does.

The only "guilt trip" libertarians will then be taking if they don't vote for Romney is one of their own ideological making.


poop. poop poop poop.....100% poop.


People who don't vote Dem or Rep are "dumbed down" and have been "robbed of common sense"??????

You're full of poop, and I'd appreciate it if you apologized to a great many people who are FAR FAR smarter than you are.
 
poop. poop poop poop.....100% poop. People who don't vote Dem or Rep are "dumbed down" and have been "robbed of common sense"?????? You're full of poop, and I'd appreciate it if you apologized to a great many people who are FAR FAR smarter than you are.
Your irrational response would imply that you need to replace "centrist" under your avatar with "libertarian" .. or maybe "liberal" .. in the name of truth-in-advertising. :roll:
 
Youll be happy to know I just went and not voted for anyone for President. Your insults and threats failed to convince me, surprisingly. Put up a better candidate next time.
 
Your irrational response would imply that you need to replace "centrist" under your avatar with "libertarian" .. or maybe "liberal" .. in the name of truth-in-advertising. :roll:

Your trying to tell people how to vote, and who to vote for, and why, is irrational, arrogant, and insulting.

Then combine that with telling those of us who feel differently than you that we're dumbed down and lacking of common sense, you put yourself on a whole other level. A level that's childish, immature, and asinine.

I WILL NOT EVER VOTE FOR ROMNEY!!!!
 
Your trying to tell people how to vote, and who to vote for, and why, is irrational, arrogant, and insulting. Then combine that with telling those of us who feel differently than you that we're dumbed down and lacking of common sense, you put yourself on a whole other level. A level that's childish, immature, and asinine. I WILL NOT EVER VOTE FOR ROMNEY!!!!
Pleading with people to take their ideological blinders off and do the sensible patriotic thing by all their fellow Americans is obviously lost on you.

Maybe that previous poster was right about some libertarians, that the more you ask them to do something the less likely they are to do it.

That's really sad, and the implication, neuropsychologically, is not a good one, .. but, maybe I'm just being too hopeful, and maybe my hope for a rational, reasonsed response is not realistic.
 
I do not entirely disagree, but then I live in Texas.

I can afford to vote for whom I want... Obama will not get our EVs.

I am not particularly impressed with Johnson or Romney. I will not vote for one of the socialist candidates. I may write in Optimus Prime.


If I lived in Ohio I would vote enthusiastically for the anybody but Obama ticket.
 
my problem with Romney is that he would be only be a change if you consider a return to Bush-style neoconservatism to be a change. when Reagan took office, the top marginal rate was 70 percent. Kennedy's tax cut dropped it from 91 percent to 70. there is a point of diminishing returns, though. the current rate is 35 percent. cutting it another 20 percent is not going to generate the level of economic activity that cutting a 91 percent marginal rate would. I just don't see our problems being solved top-down this time.

additionally, his hawkish world view makes me nervous. I'd like for us to just try and be a country for a while. there are a lot of roads and bridges right here that need to be built before we nation build somewhere else.

This is one of the things I think he missed explaining throughout this election process the most... the 35% rate is gone... his 20% cut from taxaggedon rates that we are about to go back to... So he would be cutting the top marginal rate down from 39.6% to like 33%... and therein lies the problem... He never released the proposed tax rates he wanted to move to...

Again, you're focused on top rate only... where that 20% tax cut would be felt the most would be the middle income brackets, which were left of out the Bush Tax Cuts... The Bush Tax cuts were most beneficial to the lowest income brackets, whose cut was 33% and 40%, and then the upper income bracket slightly over the middle income brackets who only saw a 3-4% reduction under the Bush Tax Cuts as opposed to the 5% reduction in the upper income brackets...

This isn't about it being top down, it's about it being across the board, felt by everyone, to loosen the current financial burdens everyone is feeling...

If he said I want taxes to be 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, and 30%... and set out the income parameters for it... I think he could've argued this point more effectively..

However, anytime you put out a specific it gives you a target to be attacked on... and he was attacked like a buzzsaw by the liberal media, so he tried to narrow the target... which didn't give his potential moderate supporters enough to attach onto...

However, if he is able to pull this off tonight... hopefully we will get to see him push for those specifics with congress...
 
This is one of the things I think he missed explaining throughout this election process the most... the 35% rate is gone... his 20% cut from taxaggedon rates that we are about to go back to... So he would be cutting the top marginal rate down from 39.6% to like 33%... and therein lies the problem... He never released the proposed tax rates he wanted to move to...

Again, you're focused on top rate only... where that 20% tax cut would be felt the most would be the middle income brackets, which were left of out the Bush Tax Cuts... The Bush Tax cuts were most beneficial to the lowest income brackets, whose cut was 33% and 40%, and then the upper income bracket slightly over the middle income brackets who only saw a 3-4% reduction under the Bush Tax Cuts as opposed to the 5% reduction in the upper income brackets...

This isn't about it being top down, it's about it being across the board, felt by everyone, to loosen the current financial burdens everyone is feeling...

If he said I want taxes to be 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, and 30%... and set out the income parameters for it... I think he could've argued this point more effectively..

However, anytime you put out a specific it gives you a target to be attacked on... and he was attacked like a buzzsaw by the liberal media, so he tried to narrow the target... which didn't give his potential moderate supporters enough to attach onto...

However, if he is able to pull this off tonight... hopefully we will get to see him push for those specifics with congress...

it's still won't have nearly the effect that Kennedy's and Reagan's tax cuts had, because the rates are already historically low. my preference would be to move all of the brackets back to 1990s levels and then start reallocating tax dollars and making cuts where we can. Romney is basically promoting one-sided austerity : it will only hit those who are enrolled in social entitlements. if we're going to cut safety nets, then the austerity needs to be shared at the upper end, too. any real deficit reduction program is going to have to include spending cuts and tax increases.
 
As election eve draws nigh, it is clear that this neck-and-neck race is leaning just a hair toward Obama.

If Obama gets reelected, a whole lot more libertarians are going to be upset than happy.

Voted Gary Johnson. If you want me to vote GOP, don't put up **** candidates.
 
Voted Gary Johnson. If you want me to vote GOP, don't put up **** candidates.
In this particular case, your vote works well for America, as under your avatar it reads "political-left", and if political-lefts don't vote for Johnson, they're the types that otherwise would vote for Obama.
 
In this particular case, your vote works well for America, as under your avatar it reads "political-left", and if political-lefts don't vote for Johnson, they're the types that otherwise would vote for Obama.

Hahah. Yeah. Like I would have ever voted for Obama. I could have voted GOP had the GOP a proper candidate (like Ron Paul....or Gary Johnson). But whatever.
 
Hahah. Yeah. Like I would have ever voted for Obama. I could have voted GOP had the GOP a proper candidate (like Ron Paul....or Gary Johnson). But whatever.

Again... libertarian left makes Romney a closer match with your political beliefs than Paul or Johnson... Me thinks you just like to protest...
 
You only get that if you support third party choices today. By not supporting third parties, you've just made it that much harder to have a real third party choice next time.

There's no support for 3rd party candidates, because there aren't anything but fringe 3rd party candidates... who are all WORSE than the two candidates from the major parties, at the moment...

Both Romney and Obama are qualified individuals... I would argue one FAR more heavily than the other, but both are able minded intelligent people, that are level headed...

Nader was a respectable Third Party candidate, who had accomplished real change, throughout his career...

Now, it just seems the whole field of protest candidates are doing it just for the sake of being a protest candidate... and they wouldn't make qualified leaders should they ever get elected...
 
Both Romney and Obama are qualified individuals... I would argue one FAR more heavily than the other, but both are able minded intelligent people, that are level headed...

As is Gary Johnson who can also boast a successful tenure as Governor. Erased New Mexico's deficit.

Sorry if I'm unimpressed by your bland opinions.
 
it's still won't have nearly the effect that Kennedy's and Reagan's tax cuts had, because the rates are already historically low. my preference would be to move all of the brackets back to 1990s levels and then start reallocating tax dollars and making cuts where we can. Romney is basically promoting one-sided austerity : it will only hit those who are enrolled in social entitlements. if we're going to cut safety nets, then the austerity needs to be shared at the upper end, too. any real deficit reduction program is going to have to include spending cuts and tax increases.

See... I don't think it will have the same effect, because the rich can still always just take money overseas, and make more out of it with cheap foreign labor...

We used to have cheap foreign labor here, and be able to get manufacturing out of it... now we don't because of minimum wage increases... So now, you have to pay a high school kid who is messing around nearly the same money you do a qualified low-skill laborer who is working that job to sustain a living... Rather than using cost of living increases, it was flat out across the board minimum wage... so there are no more low money low pay positions with which to weed out the rascals from the real laborers...

Also, this austerity thing is such a bogus claim it's not even funny... They're not advocating austerity, they're advocating slowing the spending rate... and reforming the entitlement programs so that in the future, the rich aren't entitled to the benefits.. or to raise the age of retirement since people are living longer... That way, when the baby boom retirees all go on social security it doesn't bankrupt the system for future enrollees and current employees...

That's a whole different reality than what you painted it to be...
 
As is Gary Johnson who can also boast a successful tenure as Governor. Erased New Mexico's deficit.

Sorry if I'm unimpressed by your bland opinions.

LMFAO @ bland opinions... Gary Johnson erasing a small deficit in New Mexico during the booming Clinton Economy pales in comparison with fighting the auto industry to create seat belts, fighting Washington to get the creation of OSHA the EPA, etc. that Nader has done...

It also pales in comparison with Romney eliminating a $3B deficit in MA and creating a $2B surplus in 2 years... in fact, any objective observer would rate Johnson, as a poor man's Romney... in fact, that was how he was labeled during the Republican Primary, which he tried to win, but lost to Romney...

It's one thing if you intended on being a third party candidate from the get go... it's a whole other if your plan was to be a Republican candidate, but you lost, and instead are playing the bitter card...
 
Back
Top Bottom