Ron Paul supporters?...

[GeorgeCook]

I have been a Card Carrying and Dues Paying member of the Libertarian Party for over 21 years.

While I don't agree with 100% of the Libertarian Party platform it is close.  I do believe that the principals of Libertarian Party are closer to the principals our Constitution was founded upon than what either the Democratic Party or Republican Party have to offer...by a very large margin.  In general both of those parties are working against the our country.

In those 21 years I have voted for the Libertarian Presidential candidate 19 times.  The two other votes were for George W. in  his first election and for McCain in BHO's first election.  

Both of those times I felt the threat of a continued Clinton administration with the election of Gore and the election of BHO, whom I saw as the biggest threat to our way of life during my lifetime overwhelmed the benefits of voting Libertarian.  Both of those times I voted Republican as the lesser of two evils...and by far the lesser where BHO is involved.

Even though the chance of a Libertarian victory was slight during the years I voted Libertarian, it was not a wasted vote because it aided the party in getting ballot access in the years following and it did help the "numbers".

I hear folks talk about how bad the RINOs are and how poor a job the Republican Party does after being elected, but they still vote republican...thinking, maybe, that doing the same thing over and over will have different results.

I see the Libertarian party as the only way to get this country back on track.  The differences I have with them are only a small part of their platform, all be it some major issues for me...and for other non-Libertarians here.  

This year will be the third year I do not vote for the Libertarian Presidential Candidate.  While I think Gary Johnson is the best hope of getting our country repaired, I will vote for the Republican candidate, who, it appears, will be Romney, and has the best chance of defeating BHO.  It is not that I don't believe the Republicans are as bad for the country as the Democrats, I just think the Republicans are doing it slower.

The point is that, while I believe the Libertarian Party is our best chance of repairing our "Ship of State", I think it will not happen this election and I fear that another term of BHO will leave that Ship at the bottom of the bay and far more likely irreversibly beyond repair.

Perhaps if we weather this storm, it will be the time to stand on principal, but, for me, I'll reach for the life preserver I have available.

I thought that was a very well reasoned post. Though I don't come to the same conclusion, I can respect it. Thanks! 

[billt]

For Mr. BillT:
I plan to vote for Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party. I have to tell you from my conscience I can not bring myself to vote for Mitt Romney. And despite what y'all say, a vote for Johnson is not a vote for Obama. If I could vote for VP separately, like they did way back when, I would vote for Paul Ryan; he's close enough for me. But like others posted, we don't get to vote for VP, we have to vote for the package deal. That is a deal breaker for me.

Then vote for him. What better way to elevate his political career, than to help him capture the Vice Presidency? It will all but assure him of a Presidential candidacy, assuming Romney gets elected to 2 terms. Instead, you are ready, willing, and able to waste your vote on someone who has zero chance of winning. And you will accomplish nothing by doing it, except help the idiot we now have to get reelected. I've never understood why Ron Paul supporters are so dense as to understand the way our political system works. Or else they don't care. This is why people like Ron Paul, and other Libertarian candidates will never poll more than 9%. 91% of the American voters are smarter, and understand that continuing to vote for losing candidates only accomplishes that the worst possible candidate wins, (Democrat). When freedoms are lost, we'll have you guys to thank for helping to make that possible.

[Solus]

Then vote for him. What better way to elevate his political career, than to help him capture the Vice Presidency? It will all but assure him of a Presidential candidacy, assuming Romney gets elected to 2 terms. Instead, you are ready, willing, and able to waste your vote on someone who has zero chance of winning. And you will accomplish nothing by doing it, except help the idiot we now have to get reelected. I've never understood why Ron Paul supporters are so dense as to understand the way our political system works. Or else they don't care. This is why people like Ron Paul, and other Libertarian candidates will never poll more than 9%. 91% of the American voters are smarter, and understand that continuing to vote for losing candidates only accomplishes that the worst possible candidate wins, (Democrat). When freedoms are lost, we'll have you guys to thank for helping to make that possible.

I have to disagree, Bill.

A vote for Johnson will accomplish things to further the goals of the Libertarian Party.  In this election, however, I believe the gains made for the LP are far outweighed by the damage a BHO re-election will do.

Also, I see it as the American voters are dumber.  If every voter who held their nose to vote for a Republican or Democrat who they could not respect voted instead for the Libertarian candidate that candidate could well be elected....and if that practice had gone on for a decade or more, they, for sure, would be causing the other parties to change their platforms to stop loosing votes.

What happens instead is that the American voter believes that by doing the same thing over and over, things will somehow come out differently.

The problem is that a swing to a third party takes some time...and this is not the election to work for an incremental gain for the LP.

The following is a quote from a Douglas Adams novel.   Replace Lizards with Politicians and it works in the US.  I have seen enough here to know that most think the great majority of politicians are low enough to be considered lizards.

On this world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

"I did," said ford. "It is."

"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"

"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."

[billt]

None of it matters as long as you have the Electoral College in place. They elect the President, not the people. Even Perot who did the best among third party candidates in modern times, did not receive a single Electoral Vote. The Electoral College is not going away anytime soon. There are not enough Electoral Votes in play to split it three ways and still have the necessary 270 required to win the Presidency.

[tombogan03884]

The last time there was a 3 way split was 1824.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h262.html

[Sponsor]

[TAB]

You must not forget that in many states ( ca for example) the ec is winner take all.   so a 3rd party could  cost the election, by just effecting 1 state.

[Solus]

None of it matters as long as you have the Electoral College in place. They elect the President, not the people. Even Perot who did the best among third party candidates in modern times, did not receive a single Electoral Vote. The Electoral College is not going away anytime soon. There are not enough Electoral Votes in play to split it three ways and still have the necessary 270 required to win the Presidency.

I also remember that after the two Perot runs that the Republicans made a big deal about becoming very much more "small government"  and other policies that I associate with the Libertarian Party.

They didn't stick with it though because there was no pressure to do so after Perot was gone and everyone was back to voting for the two Establishment Parties.

[Pathfinder]

You must not forget that in many states ( ca for example) the ec is winner take all.   so a 3rd party could  cost the election, by just effecting 1 state.

A number of states have also mandated that their EC votes go to the NATIONAL winner of the popular vote, regardless of the state's own results.

[GeorgeCook]

I know how much Ron Paul is loved around here (  ) so I knew it would be fitting if I posted the piece the RNC did for Ron Paul at the convention:

I know they are just throwing him a bone, but it was nice to see Jim DeMint and a few others talk about his impact.

[tombogan03884]

Ron Paul is a phony who never intended to win.
If he had he never would have mentioned his drug policy that after 80+ years of indoctrination was guaranteed to alienate enough people to keep him from having to do any work.
He's just a con man sucking in donations from chumps.
As for a "tribute", that's just something to pacify the dumb people who can't comprehend that if you can't win against your own party it's a waste of time to run you against the other party.