Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Are you voting for a third party candidate?

Posted by   + Show Post

 

Poll

Question: Are you voting for a third party candidate?

Options:

yes

no

not voting

other


Only group members can vote in this poll.

Total Votes: 52

View Results

I have noticed many people say they are voting for a third party candidate. A lot more than I have noticed in the past. Of course I am paying more attention now. What do you think? Are you voting for a third party? Do you think more people are voting third party now than they have in the past?

by on Oct. 6, 2012 at 9:46 PM
Replies (31-39):
beesbad
by Bronze Member on Oct. 8, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Unless and until a 3rd party candidate becomes a possible winner, I won't vote third party. If there was a choice that said I have no confidence in any of the candidates and am witholding my vote, I'd pick that.

Sisteract
by Whoopie on Oct. 8, 2012 at 3:04 PM

MR is spewing today- talking about the ME. UGH!

myboysRmyhero
by on Oct. 8, 2012 at 3:06 PM
Yes voteing Gary Johnson me and dh both!
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
radioheid
by Libertarian on Oct. 8, 2012 at 3:28 PM
2 moms liked this

 I didn't mention Obama for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, your argument centers on the idea that we need to get rid of Obama, and a vote for a third party candidate is a vote taken from Mitt Romney. With that consideration, I've focused on Romney more so than Obama, though my rather large statement covers both major political parties because it espouses the Libertarian ideal per foreign affairs.

You've missed the boat on the economy. I'm not sure I should bother getting into that again, since it seems as if, at this point, you'd need Hubble to see what I said. But, the short, condensed version is that neither candidate will have much of an impact on the economy, aside from their choice in whether or not to entangle the US in foreign military engagement, and how much they will raise taxes, and on whom. Neither Obama nor Romney has a viable plan to boost the economy in the near future, because neither wants to impose heavy penalties on businesses who move their shops offshore, and neither has control over the swing of a free market here in the US.

You seem pretty hung up on legalized drugs without realizing that most moderate Libertarians aren't interested in seeing any "drug" other than marijuana legalized. We realize that in a "perfect" Libertarian world, we could have legalized drugs, and intelligent, responsible people would choose not to use them. However, the reality is that our country is full of people who lack responsibility, and would make their own self-destruction the problem of society as a whole, as they have done even amidst the "War on Drugs". We Libertarians see marijuana as no more harmful than alcohol, and a huge cash crop that could potentially raise hundreds of billions in revenue, itself a partial remedy to our economy.

 

Quoting Naturewoman4:

I will respect your opinions here, even if I disagree with some of it.  I agree that we don't need to put ourselves in war after war.  But, it is the oil that we have fought over in many of them.  Both parties are responsible for being in all of these wars.  I will agree that a 3rd Party choice would be a better choice for America.  Yet, what I have read up on the Libertarians, (even joining at one point the group of Libertarians here) I can't go along with their stances either.  I CAN'T even consider a Candidate when they believe in legalizing ALL drugs.  So, who is our other choice?  I don't see it.

Since, my personal opinion is that right now in America, the ECONOMY & JOBS should be & is MY main focus, I feel Romney is the best choice by far, than Obama.  You mention Romney, yet I don't hear your attacks or disagreements with Obama here.  Why? Why is that, when Obama can't even run on his OWN record.  Why when Obama has made things WORSE NOT better.  No matter how it can be said & twisted, Obama hasn't done the job.  Presidents like Carter & others, don't even get a 2nd term because of this. 

Quoting radioheid:

 Jesus Christ, our defense budget is already larger than the next 5 combined! And even with trillions in defense spending, more than 500 military installations all over the planet and a standing military numbering in the millions, we still saw 9/11, still lost the war in Iraq, will lose the war in Afghanistan, and just saw our embassy sacked. The solution isn't a larger military, and it isn't another trillion in military spending, as Romney has suggested. The solution is to reevaluate what we already have and the role we've been playing. 

We're spending entirely too much on "defense" (which, over the past 60 years, would be better described as "offense") considering the return on that investment. We haven't won a war since WWII. Why? Because we aren't warding off attackers poised to take over the country. We aren't taking a preemptive strike on anyone who has placed us in imminent danger. We've been fighting communists on foreign continents, simply because we don't practice communism and fear its spread. We've been fighting Muslim extremists in the ME because a handful of them have committed violent acts against Americans and American interests. We've called this endless war against radical ideology "the War on Terror"---a war that is un-winnable by military means short of genocide.

Meanwhile, we've all but ignored the genocides in Rwanda and Darfur. We ignored Sadam Hussein while he was gassing Kurds to death in the hundreds of thousands. We ignored Pol Pot's reign of death over Cambodia. I could go on all day listing the horrors the United States has ignored over the last 50 years. The motivation for our choice military engagements isn't justice, it is money. "World leader" my ass---a leader considers all of his people, not just those who make him the most money. I'm not suggesting we should or should have engaged in more foreign conflicts, I'm only pointing out the fallacy in calling ourselves a "world leader" while we stand idly by and watch millions of people starve to death, live in filth and die at the hands of dictators. Either we step in, step out, or we call a spade a spade.

What, exactly, is Mitt Romney going to do to boost job growth outside the taxpayer-funded defense sector? We all know he wants to beef up defense spending, but what other plan does he have? I don't care about the part-time, minimum wage jobs he "created" while with Bain---those jobs don't get people off the welfare rolls.

Reality is that outside of socialism and its cousin communism, a nation's leader has very little to do with the economy. In free market capitalism, We The People create the economic conditions, either by making an investment or exercising caution (or *greed*). It is no mystery to me that our economy tanked after 6 years of non-profitable war in two different countries, paid for largely by loans taken out on American investors. Short of printing up more Monopoly money or forcing the stingy fuckers who hold the majority of our nation's wealth to create and expand businesses (and of course---buy American), this was bound to happen. The more I've thought about it, the more I've realized our economic downturn is the direct result of needlessly engaging in decade-long wars that offer no financial reward, and which have destabilized the global economy, and particularly that of the ME.

With that said, Mitt Romney is a bad choice for President of The United States.

Quoting Naturewoman4:

Well all I say about the Libertarians are that they believe in making ALL drugs legal.  That's why I could never vote for them.  But, other than that I liked Ron Paul.  Except, for the drug & being light on our Military forces.  I believe our Country HAS TO have a strong Military.  It doesn't mean I want to go to war, just the opposite.  I wish we could get out of all the wars, that has nothing to do with the American interests. 

 Let other Countries solve their own issues.  We have too much going on here, to worry about that.  But, we have become dependent on oil, that's why we get into many of our wars.  But, it still doesn't mean we should weaken our Military.  We have to show the World we are strong.  My MAIN priority in this yr's election is the ECONOMY & JOBS PERIOD!!  Obama has no answer for this.  If given another 4 yrs. he WILL make things worse or America.  MORE will be living in poverty & our crime rate WILL go up.  Romney is the one that KNOWS how the Economy works & WILL get Americans back to working. 

 With Romney's plan for more jobs, there will be MORE competition where employers will have to compete then higher wages will start to come back again.  Obama is KILLING the small businesses.  Corps. are too afraid to expand & hire more, because of Obamacare.  IF people want MORE of what we have had these past 3 1/2 yrs.  then YES vote for him then.  It's people choice. 

Quoting radioheid:

 I'm a registered Republican who typically votes Republican when a Libertarian doesn't appear on the ballot. But to be totally frank, I'm more comfortable with 4 more years of Obama than I am with Mitt Romney sitting in the Oval Office for *any* length of time. Romney is a danger to America in the global theater. He is an arrogant elitist who will almost certainly draw us into another war, because he subscribes to the concept of "war is money". After all, what ended the Great Depression? ---World War II.

I am not wasting my vote. I am voting for who I believe in, and I believe in Gary Johnson. His record as 2-term governor of New Mexico is excellent. I'm a "follower" of the "Ron Paul Revolution", so Gary Johnson is my natural choice for president, as Dr. Paul dropped out of the race.

Quoting Naturewoman4:

Just like NOT voting, if one votes 3rd party, IMO it's like throwing your vote away.  This is just MY opionion, because I NEED Obama voted out of office.  I think the Country desperately needs Obama OUT!  IF not, I believe this Country will suffer more than it already has under Obama.  Obama has no plans for ANYTHNG.  He believes his policies are working.  He believes things has turned around. 

 When in fact, they have gotten worse.  Voing 3rd Party OR not voting at all, to me, is like giving Obama your vote.  Therefore, helping him to win.  Things HAVE gotten worse so far this yr. then in 2011.  Things were worse in 2011, than in 2010.  Things were worse in 2010, than in 2009.  Obama simply doesn't know what to do anymore.  That's why in the debates his head was down a lot.  He KNEW he has failed these 3 1/2 yrs.  Just my opinion.

 

 

 

 

 


"Roger that. Over."

R   A   D    I    O    H    E    I    D

Naturewoman4
by Platinum Member on Oct. 8, 2012 at 4:09 PM

I don't really know what you are implying by saying that I missed the boat on the economy.  Then saying I need 'Hubble' to see what you have said.  When all I see is the disasters job Obama has done on the Economy & Jobs.  That's just to name a few.  Obama's record as President speaks for itself.  His Pres. Approval Index Rating is -11, so how anyone could vote for a Pres. with that record/rating, shocks me really.

YOU & others don't know what Romney could do as President.  We already seen what Obama has done.  29% strongly APPROVES of Obama performance, & 40% strongly DISAPPROVES.  What does that say to you?  Romney hasn't had the chance yet, so I believe people can't say what THEY think he will do.  The fact that Romney has business experience, he was Gov. of MA & did a lot of good things for the State, working with BOTH Reps. & Dems., when 87% were Dems., to me that shows that Romney CAN work with both sides.  Where as Obama, well he NEVER will/never has. 

When I was on the Libertarian group on CM, it was to learn about the Party.  To see if I agreed with their stances.  I even took their "platform' survey/test, & I didn't go along with MOST of where they stand on issues.  All the moms that I spoke to on there, was FOR making ALL drugs legals.  So, that said it all for me right there.  To elect a President with those views, I could never do. 

 I believe, that Ron Paul even agrees with that.  Gary Johnson, I believe was his name, just believed in legalizing Pot.  Which again, I TOTALLY am against.  I don't believe that is our answer to getting us out of debt.  That would cause MORE issues in this Country.  Especially, for our youth.  So, yes I am TOTALLY against NOT voting or voting 3rd Party. 

Quoting radioheid:

 I didn't mention Obama for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, your argument centers on the idea that we need to get rid of Obama, and a vote for a third party candidate is a vote taken from Mitt Romney. With that consideration, I've focused on Romney more so than Obama, though my rather large statement covers both major political parties because it espouses the Libertarian ideal per foreign affairs.

You've missed the boat on the economy. I'm not sure I should bother getting into that again, since it seems as if, at this point, you'd need Hubble to see what I said. But, the short, condensed version is that neither candidate will have much of an impact on the economy, aside from their choice in whether or not to entangle the US in foreign military engagement, and how much they will raise taxes, and on whom. Neither Obama nor Romney has a viable plan to boost the economy in the near future, because neither wants to impose heavy penalties on businesses who move their shops offshore, and neither has control over the swing of a free market here in the US.

You seem pretty hung up on legalized drugs without realizing that most moderate Libertarians aren't interested in seeing any "drug" other than marijuana legalized. We realize that in a "perfect" Libertarian world, we could have legalized drugs, and intelligent, responsible people would choose not to use them. However, the reality is that our country is full of people who lack responsibility, and would make their own self-destruction the problem of society as a whole, as they have done even amidst the "War on Drugs". We Libertarians see marijuana as no more harmful than alcohol, and a huge cash crop that could potentially raise hundreds of billions in revenue, itself a partial remedy to our economy.

 

Quoting Naturewoman4:

I will respect your opinions here, even if I disagree with some of it.  I agree that we don't need to put ourselves in war after war.  But, it is the oil that we have fought over in many of them.  Both parties are responsible for being in all of these wars.  I will agree that a 3rd Party choice would be a better choice for America.  Yet, what I have read up on the Libertarians, (even joining at one point the group of Libertarians here) I can't go along with their stances either.  I CAN'T even consider a Candidate when they believe in legalizing ALL drugs.  So, who is our other choice?  I don't see it.

Since, my personal opinion is that right now in America, the ECONOMY & JOBS should be & is MY main focus, I feel Romney is the best choice by far, than Obama.  You mention Romney, yet I don't hear your attacks or disagreements with Obama here.  Why? Why is that, when Obama can't even run on his OWN record.  Why when Obama has made things WORSE NOT better.  No matter how it can be said & twisted, Obama hasn't done the job.  Presidents like Carter & others, don't even get a 2nd term because of this. 

Quoting radioheid:

 Jesus Christ, our defense budget is already larger than the next 5 combined! And even with trillions in defense spending, more than 500 military installations all over the planet and a standing military numbering in the millions, we still saw 9/11, still lost the war in Iraq, will lose the war in Afghanistan, and just saw our embassy sacked. The solution isn't a larger military, and it isn't another trillion in military spending, as Romney has suggested. The solution is to reevaluate what we already have and the role we've been playing. 

We're spending entirely too much on "defense" (which, over the past 60 years, would be better described as "offense") considering the return on that investment. We haven't won a war since WWII. Why? Because we aren't warding off attackers poised to take over the country. We aren't taking a preemptive strike on anyone who has placed us in imminent danger. We've been fighting communists on foreign continents, simply because we don't practice communism and fear its spread. We've been fighting Muslim extremists in the ME because a handful of them have committed violent acts against Americans and American interests. We've called this endless war against radical ideology "the War on Terror"---a war that is un-winnable by military means short of genocide.

Meanwhile, we've all but ignored the genocides in Rwanda and Darfur. We ignored Sadam Hussein while he was gassing Kurds to death in the hundreds of thousands. We ignored Pol Pot's reign of death over Cambodia. I could go on all day listing the horrors the United States has ignored over the last 50 years. The motivation for our choice military engagements isn't justice, it is money. "World leader" my ass---a leader considers all of his people, not just those who make him the most money. I'm not suggesting we should or should have engaged in more foreign conflicts, I'm only pointing out the fallacy in calling ourselves a "world leader" while we stand idly by and watch millions of people starve to death, live in filth and die at the hands of dictators. Either we step in, step out, or we call a spade a spade.

What, exactly, is Mitt Romney going to do to boost job growth outside the taxpayer-funded defense sector? We all know he wants to beef up defense spending, but what other plan does he have? I don't care about the part-time, minimum wage jobs he "created" while with Bain---those jobs don't get people off the welfare rolls.

Reality is that outside of socialism and its cousin communism, a nation's leader has very little to do with the economy. In free market capitalism, We The People create the economic conditions, either by making an investment or exercising caution (or *greed*). It is no mystery to me that our economy tanked after 6 years of non-profitable war in two different countries, paid for largely by loans taken out on American investors. Short of printing up more Monopoly money or forcing the stingy fuckers who hold the majority of our nation's wealth to create and expand businesses (and of course---buy American), this was bound to happen. The more I've thought about it, the more I've realized our economic downturn is the direct result of needlessly engaging in decade-long wars that offer no financial reward, and which have destabilized the global economy, and particularly that of the ME.

With that said, Mitt Romney is a bad choice for President of The United States.

Quoting Naturewoman4:

Well all I say about the Libertarians are that they believe in making ALL drugs legal.  That's why I could never vote for them.  But, other than that I liked Ron Paul.  Except, for the drug & being light on our Military forces.  I believe our Country HAS TO have a strong Military.  It doesn't mean I want to go to war, just the opposite.  I wish we could get out of all the wars, that has nothing to do with the American interests. 

 Let other Countries solve their own issues.  We have too much going on here, to worry about that.  But, we have become dependent on oil, that's why we get into many of our wars.  But, it still doesn't mean we should weaken our Military.  We have to show the World we are strong.  My MAIN priority in this yr's election is the ECONOMY & JOBS PERIOD!!  Obama has no answer for this.  If given another 4 yrs. he WILL make things worse or America.  MORE will be living in poverty & our crime rate WILL go up.  Romney is the one that KNOWS how the Economy works & WILL get Americans back to working. 

 With Romney's plan for more jobs, there will be MORE competition where employers will have to compete then higher wages will start to come back again.  Obama is KILLING the small businesses.  Corps. are too afraid to expand & hire more, because of Obamacare.  IF people want MORE of what we have had these past 3 1/2 yrs.  then YES vote for him then.  It's people choice. 

Quoting radioheid:

 I'm a registered Republican who typically votes Republican when a Libertarian doesn't appear on the ballot. But to be totally frank, I'm more comfortable with 4 more years of Obama than I am with Mitt Romney sitting in the Oval Office for *any* length of time. Romney is a danger to America in the global theater. He is an arrogant elitist who will almost certainly draw us into another war, because he subscribes to the concept of "war is money". After all, what ended the Great Depression? ---World War II.

I am not wasting my vote. I am voting for who I believe in, and I believe in Gary Johnson. His record as 2-term governor of New Mexico is excellent. I'm a "follower" of the "Ron Paul Revolution", so Gary Johnson is my natural choice for president, as Dr. Paul dropped out of the race.

Quoting Naturewoman4:

Just like NOT voting, if one votes 3rd party, IMO it's like throwing your vote away.  This is just MY opionion, because I NEED Obama voted out of office.  I think the Country desperately needs Obama OUT!  IF not, I believe this Country will suffer more than it already has under Obama.  Obama has no plans for ANYTHNG.  He believes his policies are working.  He believes things has turned around. 

 When in fact, they have gotten worse.  Voing 3rd Party OR not voting at all, to me, is like giving Obama your vote.  Therefore, helping him to win.  Things HAVE gotten worse so far this yr. then in 2011.  Things were worse in 2011, than in 2010.  Things were worse in 2010, than in 2009.  Obama simply doesn't know what to do anymore.  That's why in the debates his head was down a lot.  He KNEW he has failed these 3 1/2 yrs.  Just my opinion.

 

 

 

 

 


Sisteract
by Whoopie on Oct. 8, 2012 at 4:18 PM


Where Does America Get Oil? You May Be Surprised

The source of U.S. oil imports has been evolving. Canada, Latin America and Africa have been sending more oil to the U.S., while Middle Eastern crude is playing a smaller role. This photo shows an oil operation in 2007 off the coast of Angola, a leading producer in Africa.
Marcel Mochet/AFP/Getty Images

The source of U.S. oil imports has been evolving. Canada, Latin America and Africa have been sending more oil to the U.S., while Middle Eastern crude is playing a smaller role. This photo shows an oil operation in 2007 off the coast of Angola, a leading producer in Africa.

text size A A A
April 12, 2012

Since the Arab oil embargoes of the 1960s and 70s, it's been conventional wisdom to talk about American dependence on oil from the Persian Gulf. But the global oil market has changed dramatically since then.

Today, the U.S. actually gets most of its imported oil from Canada and Latin America.

And many Americans might be surprised to learn that the U.S. now imports roughly the same amount of oil from Africa as it does from the Persian Gulf. African imports were a bit higher in 2010, while Persian Gulf oil accounted for a bit more last year.

Where The U.S. Gets Its Oil

Where The U.S. Gets Its Oil

America is one of the world's largest oil producers, and close to 40 percent of U.S. oil needs are met at home. Most of the imports currently come from five countries: Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela and Nigeria.

Desert Kingdoms Versus The Great White North

Canada is far and away the biggest purveyor of crude to its southern neighbor, hitting a record 2.2 million barrels a day last year as its share of the U.S. market grew by 12 percent.

Energy expert Robert Rapier says the take-away for Americans may be "marry a Canadian," because he or she will be a citizen of an increasingly rich country. "Their budget looks good, and they're sitting on top of tremendous reserves," he says.

Saudi Arabia is a distant second, providing the U.S. with barely half as much crude as Canada. Other Persian Gulf countries also contribute to U.S. oil imports, but make up a relatively small share overall.

"People have tended to exaggerate how much oil we imported from the Middle East," says John Duffield, an energy expert and professor of political science at Georgia State University.

"In the long term, it may look like a historical anomaly that the U.S. became so involved in the Persian Gulf," he adds.

Producers Become Users

In terms of U.S. imports, Mexico is close behind Saudi Arabia in third place. Mexican imports did fall by more than 4 percent last year, partly because Mexico's oil production has been declining and partly because Mexican consumers are demanding more oil for their own use in an increasingly middle-class country.

It's a familiar story among oil-producing countries: As they become wealthier, they consume more of their own oil, says Rapier.

Although Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is no fan of the United States, his country is still a big contributor to America's oil imports. That's at least partly because the economics of shipping Venezuelan oil across the Caribbean are so much more attractive than hauling it to other markets, such as Europe.

But Venezuela's exports to the United States fell by 5 percent last year, dropping to the lowest level in two decades.

Rapier says that's because Chavez's government has been neglecting its oil sector, "siphoning off money from its own industry and killing the goose that lays the golden egg."

Nigeria suffered an even bigger drop in its exports to the United States, down 22 percent last year from the year before, as oil production was disrupted by civil unrest.

Nigeria's turmoil has received relatively little attention in the U.S. even though that country now provides more oil to the U.S. than any Middle Eastern country except Saudi Arabia.

Does It Matter Where Oil Comes From?

In terms of global oil prices, analysts say the source of the oil isn't all that important.

"Anybody who follows the oil industry will tell you that it doesn't make any difference where the oil comes from," says Keith Crane, an energy expert at RAND Corp.

People have tended to exaggerate how much oil we imported from the Middle East. In the long term, it may look like a historical anomaly that the U.S. became so involved in the Persian Gulf.

Global oil markets are so intertwined, Crane says, that changes in any one part of the system can trigger effects elsewhere.

He points out that the U.S. has imposed sanctions on Iran and therefore does not import its oil. But "if Iranian oil goes off the [world] market, it still affects the price in the United States," Crane says.

Meanwhile, Iran has had no real problem selling its oil to Asian countries, though tougher sanctions are set to go into place this summer.

Now that the U.S. involvement in Iraq has wound down, Crane says, oil seems to be less of an American security concern.

"Do you need military might to preserve access to oil? I don't think there's a lot of evidence to say that's really important," he says.

Crane argues that many of the biggest security challenges the United States faces today are not directly related to energy. He points to the nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea, and the U.S. war in Afghanistan.

U.S. Is Producing More Oil

Analysts also point out that the U.S. is producing more oil domestically while reducing its dependence on oil in general.

The recent recession and the slow economic recovery have dampened demand for oil products. But "the big story is that the U.S. has really expanded production over the past several years," says Crane, citing the production of oil from shale in North Dakota and other states.

He notes that the country has also become more energy efficient, building cars with better gas mileage and shifting away from oil-based energy.

"Whereas the U.S. has been the biggest consumer of oil products in the world, the role of oil is smaller than it was in the '70s, and even than it was in the '90s," Crane says.

But the U.S. still spends huge sums on oil because the rise in world prices has more than made up for the drop in U.S. imports.

"Five years ago, we were importing 10 million barrels a day, but at $50 a barrel," says Rapier. "Now we're at 8.4 million barrels, but at prices over $100 a barrel."

radioheid
by Libertarian on Oct. 9, 2012 at 7:38 AM
1 mom liked this

 There you go again with Obama. Why is Obama part of this conversation? We're talking about Romney and Gary Johnson.

I think the problem is that we *don't* know what Romney would do as Prez. He can't make up his mind. He has changed his position on key issues a number of times over the last few years. He has flip-flopped and etch-a-sketched to the point that nobody knows what he'd do, not even Romney himself. We hear his feeling of the month on an issue, then hear him revise it, again and again. Currently, he wants to arm the rebels in Syria and squeeze Iran until nuclear warheads pop out (and land on us). Who knows what he'll say next week, or next month, or next year. At least with Obama, there's a high degree of predictability. We know he's a bastardized socialist who will hand out free phones, shoddy healthcare and food stamps at the cost of a mounting deficit. With Romney, who the fuck knows. Could be another couple wars, could be more taxes on the poor and middle class, could be a fucking miracle. I prefer to err on the side of caution with incumbent presidents, especially when the other guy running is as flaky and morally & ethically fucked up as Romney.

I never said legalizing marijuana would get us out of debt, I said it would help our economy, because it would. Why are you so opposed to legalization? Marijuana isn't the root of crime, hate, poverty and greed are.

You crack me up with your pouty ignorance. LOL

 

Quoting Naturewoman4:

I don't really know what you are implying by saying that I missed the boat on the economy.  Then saying I need 'Hubble' to see what you have said.  When all I see is the disasters job Obama has done on the Economy & Jobs.  That's just to name a few.  Obama's record as President speaks for itself.  His Pres. Approval Index Rating is -11, so how anyone could vote for a Pres. with that record/rating, shocks me really.

YOU & others don't know what Romney could do as President.  We already seen what Obama has done.  29% strongly APPROVES of Obama performance, & 40% strongly DISAPPROVES.  What does that say to you?  Romney hasn't had the chance yet, so I believe people can't say what THEY think he will do.  The fact that Romney has business experience, he was Gov. of MA & did a lot of good things for the State, working with BOTH Reps. & Dems., when 87% were Dems., to me that shows that Romney CAN work with both sides.  Where as Obama, well he NEVER will/never has. 

When I was on the Libertarian group on CM, it was to learn about the Party.  To see if I agreed with their stances.  I even took their "platform' survey/test, & I didn't go along with MOST of where they stand on issues.  All the moms that I spoke to on there, was FOR making ALL drugs legals.  So, that said it all for me right there.  To elect a President with those views, I could never do. 

 I believe, that Ron Paul even agrees with that.  Gary Johnson, I believe was his name, just believed in legalizing Pot.  Which again, I TOTALLY am against.  I don't believe that is our answer to getting us out of debt.  That would cause MORE issues in this Country.  Especially, for our youth.  So, yes I am TOTALLY against NOT voting or voting 3rd Party. 

Quoting radioheid:

 I didn't mention Obama for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, your argument centers on the idea that we need to get rid of Obama, and a vote for a third party candidate is a vote taken from Mitt Romney. With that consideration, I've focused on Romney more so than Obama, though my rather large statement covers both major political parties because it espouses the Libertarian ideal per foreign affairs.

You've missed the boat on the economy. I'm not sure I should bother getting into that again, since it seems as if, at this point, you'd need Hubble to see what I said. But, the short, condensed version is that neither candidate will have much of an impact on the economy, aside from their choice in whether or not to entangle the US in foreign military engagement, and how much they will raise taxes, and on whom. Neither Obama nor Romney has a viable plan to boost the economy in the near future, because neither wants to impose heavy penalties on businesses who move their shops offshore, and neither has control over the swing of a free market here in the US.

You seem pretty hung up on legalized drugs without realizing that most moderate Libertarians aren't interested in seeing any "drug" other than marijuana legalized. We realize that in a "perfect" Libertarian world, we could have legalized drugs, and intelligent, responsible people would choose not to use them. However, the reality is that our country is full of people who lack responsibility, and would make their own self-destruction the problem of society as a whole, as they have done even amidst the "War on Drugs". We Libertarians see marijuana as no more harmful than alcohol, and a huge cash crop that could potentially raise hundreds of billions in revenue, itself a partial remedy to our economy.

 

Quoting Naturewoman4:

I will respect your opinions here, even if I disagree with some of it.  I agree that we don't need to put ourselves in war after war.  But, it is the oil that we have fought over in many of them.  Both parties are responsible for being in all of these wars.  I will agree that a 3rd Party choice would be a better choice for America.  Yet, what I have read up on the Libertarians, (even joining at one point the group of Libertarians here) I can't go along with their stances either.  I CAN'T even consider a Candidate when they believe in legalizing ALL drugs.  So, who is our other choice?  I don't see it.

Since, my personal opinion is that right now in America, the ECONOMY & JOBS should be & is MY main focus, I feel Romney is the best choice by far, than Obama.  You mention Romney, yet I don't hear your attacks or disagreements with Obama here.  Why? Why is that, when Obama can't even run on his OWN record.  Why when Obama has made things WORSE NOT better.  No matter how it can be said & twisted, Obama hasn't done the job.  Presidents like Carter & others, don't even get a 2nd term because of this. 

Quoting radioheid:

 Jesus Christ, our defense budget is already larger than the next 5 combined! And even with trillions in defense spending, more than 500 military installations all over the planet and a standing military numbering in the millions, we still saw 9/11, still lost the war in Iraq, will lose the war in Afghanistan, and just saw our embassy sacked. The solution isn't a larger military, and it isn't another trillion in military spending, as Romney has suggested. The solution is to reevaluate what we already have and the role we've been playing. 

We're spending entirely too much on "defense" (which, over the past 60 years, would be better described as "offense") considering the return on that investment. We haven't won a war since WWII. Why? Because we aren't warding off attackers poised to take over the country. We aren't taking a preemptive strike on anyone who has placed us in imminent danger. We've been fighting communists on foreign continents, simply because we don't practice communism and fear its spread. We've been fighting Muslim extremists in the ME because a handful of them have committed violent acts against Americans and American interests. We've called this endless war against radical ideology "the War on Terror"---a war that is un-winnable by military means short of genocide.

Meanwhile, we've all but ignored the genocides in Rwanda and Darfur. We ignored Sadam Hussein while he was gassing Kurds to death in the hundreds of thousands. We ignored Pol Pot's reign of death over Cambodia. I could go on all day listing the horrors the United States has ignored over the last 50 years. The motivation for our choice military engagements isn't justice, it is money. "World leader" my ass---a leader considers all of his people, not just those who make him the most money. I'm not suggesting we should or should have engaged in more foreign conflicts, I'm only pointing out the fallacy in calling ourselves a "world leader" while we stand idly by and watch millions of people starve to death, live in filth and die at the hands of dictators. Either we step in, step out, or we call a spade a spade.

What, exactly, is Mitt Romney going to do to boost job growth outside the taxpayer-funded defense sector? We all know he wants to beef up defense spending, but what other plan does he have? I don't care about the part-time, minimum wage jobs he "created" while with Bain---those jobs don't get people off the welfare rolls.

Reality is that outside of socialism and its cousin communism, a nation's leader has very little to do with the economy. In free market capitalism, We The People create the economic conditions, either by making an investment or exercising caution (or *greed*). It is no mystery to me that our economy tanked after 6 years of non-profitable war in two different countries, paid for largely by loans taken out on American investors. Short of printing up more Monopoly money or forcing the stingy fuckers who hold the majority of our nation's wealth to create and expand businesses (and of course---buy American), this was bound to happen. The more I've thought about it, the more I've realized our economic downturn is the direct result of needlessly engaging in decade-long wars that offer no financial reward, and which have destabilized the global economy, and particularly that of the ME.

With that said, Mitt Romney is a bad choice for President of The United States.

Quoting Naturewoman4:

Well all I say about the Libertarians are that they believe in making ALL drugs legal.  That's why I could never vote for them.  But, other than that I liked Ron Paul.  Except, for the drug & being light on our Military forces.  I believe our Country HAS TO have a strong Military.  It doesn't mean I want to go to war, just the opposite.  I wish we could get out of all the wars, that has nothing to do with the American interests. 

 Let other Countries solve their own issues.  We have too much going on here, to worry about that.  But, we have become dependent on oil, that's why we get into many of our wars.  But, it still doesn't mean we should weaken our Military.  We have to show the World we are strong.  My MAIN priority in this yr's election is the ECONOMY & JOBS PERIOD!!  Obama has no answer for this.  If given another 4 yrs. he WILL make things worse or America.  MORE will be living in poverty & our crime rate WILL go up.  Romney is the one that KNOWS how the Economy works & WILL get Americans back to working. 

 With Romney's plan for more jobs, there will be MORE competition where employers will have to compete then higher wages will start to come back again.  Obama is KILLING the small businesses.  Corps. are too afraid to expand & hire more, because of Obamacare.  IF people want MORE of what we have had these past 3 1/2 yrs.  then YES vote for him then.  It's people choice. 

Quoting radioheid:

 I'm a registered Republican who typically votes Republican when a Libertarian doesn't appear on the ballot. But to be totally frank, I'm more comfortable with 4 more years of Obama than I am with Mitt Romney sitting in the Oval Office for *any* length of time. Romney is a danger to America in the global theater. He is an arrogant elitist who will almost certainly draw us into another war, because he subscribes to the concept of "war is money". After all, what ended the Great Depression? ---World War II.

I am not wasting my vote. I am voting for who I believe in, and I believe in Gary Johnson. His record as 2-term governor of New Mexico is excellent. I'm a "follower" of the "Ron Paul Revolution", so Gary Johnson is my natural choice for president, as Dr. Paul dropped out of the race.

Quoting Naturewoman4:

Just like NOT voting, if one votes 3rd party, IMO it's like throwing your vote away.  This is just MY opionion, because I NEED Obama voted out of office.  I think the Country desperately needs Obama OUT!  IF not, I believe this Country will suffer more than it already has under Obama.  Obama has no plans for ANYTHNG.  He believes his policies are working.  He believes things has turned around. 

 When in fact, they have gotten worse.  Voing 3rd Party OR not voting at all, to me, is like giving Obama your vote.  Therefore, helping him to win.  Things HAVE gotten worse so far this yr. then in 2011.  Things were worse in 2011, than in 2010.  Things were worse in 2010, than in 2009.  Obama simply doesn't know what to do anymore.  That's why in the debates his head was down a lot.  He KNEW he has failed these 3 1/2 yrs.  Just my opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


"Roger that. Over."

R   A   D    I    O    H    E    I    D

la_bella_vita
by Bella on Oct. 9, 2012 at 10:46 AM

 Yes

Naturewoman4
by Platinum Member on Oct. 9, 2012 at 1:06 PM

You know I am not even going to debate you anymore.  I thought I was being kind to say that I enjoyed your posts & that said you WERE intelligent, etc.  BUT, I CLEARLY was mistaken.  You want to attack me & call me names, go ahead.  But, I'm through reading your posts & debating with you.  You are just another HILLBILLY!! YOU have NO intelligence AT AL!!  You just wanted to cram your Libertarian down my throat & others.

  Libertarians are worse than Dems.  I would even go as far as voting for Obama, then a Libertarian IF they are going to be just as stupid as you are.  You vote however why you want.  But, YOUR Libertarians will NEVER go far.  There will NEVER be a Libertarian President!!  Because they are idoits!!  Your not even worth my time anymore.  Post all you want, but I will not read whatever you post.  You keep living the way you want, collecting ALL YOUR FREE STUFF, I don't care.  Because, you're no different than all the other fools out there!  But, it won't be for very long, when Romney kicks butt!!!  Good-Bye

Quoting radioheid:

 There you go again with Obama. Why is Obama part of this conversation? We're talking about Romney and Gary Johnson.

I think the problem is that we *don't* know what Romney would do as Prez. He can't make up his mind. He has changed his position on key issues a number of times over the last few years. He has flip-flopped and etch-a-sketched to the point that nobody knows what he'd do, not even Romney himself. We hear his feeling of the month on an issue, then hear him revise it, again and again. Currently, he wants to arm the rebels in Syria and squeeze Iran until nuclear warheads pop out (and land on us). Who knows what he'll say next week, or next month, or next year. At least with Obama, there's a high degree of predictability. We know he's a bastardized socialist who will hand out free phones, shoddy healthcare and food stamps at the cost of a mounting deficit. With Romney, who the fuck knows. Could be another couple wars, could be more taxes on the poor and middle class, could be a fucking miracle. I prefer to err on the side of caution with incumbent presidents, especially when the other guy running is as flaky and morally & ethically fucked up as Romney.

I never said legalizing marijuana would get us out of debt, I said it would help our economy, because it would. Why are you so opposed to legalization? Marijuana isn't the root of crime, hate, poverty and greed are.

You crack me up with your pouty ignorance. LOL

 

Quoting Naturewoman4:

I don't really know what you are implying by saying that I missed the boat on the economy.  Then saying I need 'Hubble' to see what you have said.  When all I see is the disasters job Obama has done on the Economy & Jobs.  That's just to name a few.  Obama's record as President speaks for itself.  His Pres. Approval Index Rating is -11, so how anyone could vote for a Pres. with that record/rating, shocks me really.

YOU & others don't know what Romney could do as President.  We already seen what Obama has done.  29% strongly APPROVES of Obama performance, & 40% strongly DISAPPROVES.  What does that say to you?  Romney hasn't had the chance yet, so I believe people can't say what THEY think he will do.  The fact that Romney has business experience, he was Gov. of MA & did a lot of good things for the State, working with BOTH Reps. & Dems., when 87% were Dems., to me that shows that Romney CAN work with both sides.  Where as Obama, well he NEVER will/never has. 

When I was on the Libertarian group on CM, it was to learn about the Party.  To see if I agreed with their stances.  I even took their "platform' survey/test, & I didn't go along with MOST of where they stand on issues.  All the moms that I spoke to on there, was FOR making ALL drugs legals.  So, that said it all for me right there.  To elect a President with those views, I could never do. 

 I believe, that Ron Paul even agrees with that.  Gary Johnson, I believe was his name, just believed in legalizing Pot.  Which again, I TOTALLY am against.  I don't believe that is our answer to getting us out of debt.  That would cause MORE issues in this Country.  Especially, for our youth.  So, yes I am TOTALLY against NOT voting or voting 3rd Party. 

Quoting radioheid:

 I didn't mention Obama for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, your argument centers on the idea that we need to get rid of Obama, and a vote for a third party candidate is a vote taken from Mitt Romney. With that consideration, I've focused on Romney more so than Obama, though my rather large statement covers both major political parties because it espouses the Libertarian ideal per foreign affairs.

You've missed the boat on the economy. I'm not sure I should bother getting into that again, since it seems as if, at this point, you'd need Hubble to see what I said. But, the short, condensed version is that neither candidate will have much of an impact on the economy, aside from their choice in whether or not to entangle the US in foreign military engagement, and how much they will raise taxes, and on whom. Neither Obama nor Romney has a viable plan to boost the economy in the near future, because neither wants to impose heavy penalties on businesses who move their shops offshore, and neither has control over the swing of a free market here in the US.

You seem pretty hung up on legalized drugs without realizing that most moderate Libertarians aren't interested in seeing any "drug" other than marijuana legalized. We realize that in a "perfect" Libertarian world, we could have legalized drugs, and intelligent, responsible people would choose not to use them. However, the reality is that our country is full of people who lack responsibility, and would make their own self-destruction the problem of society as a whole, as they have done even amidst the "War on Drugs". We Libertarians see marijuana as no more harmful than alcohol, and a huge cash crop that could potentially raise hundreds of billions in revenue, itself a partial remedy to our economy.

 

Quoting Naturewoman4:

I will respect your opinions here, even if I disagree with some of it.  I agree that we don't need to put ourselves in war after war.  But, it is the oil that we have fought over in many of them.  Both parties are responsible for being in all of these wars.  I will agree that a 3rd Party choice would be a better choice for America.  Yet, what I have read up on the Libertarians, (even joining at one point the group of Libertarians here) I can't go along with their stances either.  I CAN'T even consider a Candidate when they believe in legalizing ALL drugs.  So, who is our other choice?  I don't see it.

Since, my personal opinion is that right now in America, the ECONOMY & JOBS should be & is MY main focus, I feel Romney is the best choice by far, than Obama.  You mention Romney, yet I don't hear your attacks or disagreements with Obama here.  Why? Why is that, when Obama can't even run on his OWN record.  Why when Obama has made things WORSE NOT better.  No matter how it can be said & twisted, Obama hasn't done the job.  Presidents like Carter & others, don't even get a 2nd term because of this. 

Quoting radioheid:

 Jesus Christ, our defense budget is already larger than the next 5 combined! And even with trillions in defense spending, more than 500 military installations all over the planet and a standing military numbering in the millions, we still saw 9/11, still lost the war in Iraq, will lose the war in Afghanistan, and just saw our embassy sacked. The solution isn't a larger military, and it isn't another trillion in military spending, as Romney has suggested. The solution is to reevaluate what we already have and the role we've been playing. 

We're spending entirely too much on "defense" (which, over the past 60 years, would be better described as "offense") considering the return on that investment. We haven't won a war since WWII. Why? Because we aren't warding off attackers poised to take over the country. We aren't taking a preemptive strike on anyone who has placed us in imminent danger. We've been fighting communists on foreign continents, simply because we don't practice communism and fear its spread. We've been fighting Muslim extremists in the ME because a handful of them have committed violent acts against Americans and American interests. We've called this endless war against radical ideology "the War on Terror"---a war that is un-winnable by military means short of genocide.

Meanwhile, we've all but ignored the genocides in Rwanda and Darfur. We ignored Sadam Hussein while he was gassing Kurds to death in the hundreds of thousands. We ignored Pol Pot's reign of death over Cambodia. I could go on all day listing the horrors the United States has ignored over the last 50 years. The motivation for our choice military engagements isn't justice, it is money. "World leader" my ass---a leader considers all of his people, not just those who make him the most money. I'm not suggesting we should or should have engaged in more foreign conflicts, I'm only pointing out the fallacy in calling ourselves a "world leader" while we stand idly by and watch millions of people starve to death, live in filth and die at the hands of dictators. Either we step in, step out, or we call a spade a spade.

What, exactly, is Mitt Romney going to do to boost job growth outside the taxpayer-funded defense sector? We all know he wants to beef up defense spending, but what other plan does he have? I don't care about the part-time, minimum wage jobs he "created" while with Bain---those jobs don't get people off the welfare rolls.

Reality is that outside of socialism and its cousin communism, a nation's leader has very little to do with the economy. In free market capitalism, We The People create the economic conditions, either by making an investment or exercising caution (or *greed*). It is no mystery to me that our economy tanked after 6 years of non-profitable war in two different countries, paid for largely by loans taken out on American investors. Short of printing up more Monopoly money or forcing the stingy fuckers who hold the majority of our nation's wealth to create and expand businesses (and of course---buy American), this was bound to happen. The more I've thought about it, the more I've realized our economic downturn is the direct result of needlessly engaging in decade-long wars that offer no financial reward, and which have destabilized the global economy, and particularly that of the ME.

With that said, Mitt Romney is a bad choice for President of The United States.

Quoting Naturewoman4:

Well all I say about the Libertarians are that they believe in making ALL drugs legal.  That's why I could never vote for them.  But, other than that I liked Ron Paul.  Except, for the drug & being light on our Military forces.  I believe our Country HAS TO have a strong Military.  It doesn't mean I want to go to war, just the opposite.  I wish we could get out of all the wars, that has nothing to do with the American interests. 

 Let other Countries solve their own issues.  We have too much going on here, to worry about that.  But, we have become dependent on oil, that's why we get into many of our wars.  But, it still doesn't mean we should weaken our Military.  We have to show the World we are strong.  My MAIN priority in this yr's election is the ECONOMY & JOBS PERIOD!!  Obama has no answer for this.  If given another 4 yrs. he WILL make things worse or America.  MORE will be living in poverty & our crime rate WILL go up.  Romney is the one that KNOWS how the Economy works & WILL get Americans back to working. 

 With Romney's plan for more jobs, there will be MORE competition where employers will have to compete then higher wages will start to come back again.  Obama is KILLING the small businesses.  Corps. are too afraid to expand & hire more, because of Obamacare.  IF people want MORE of what we have had these past 3 1/2 yrs.  then YES vote for him then.  It's people choice. 

Quoting radioheid:

 I'm a registered Republican who typically votes Republican when a Libertarian doesn't appear on the ballot. But to be totally frank, I'm more comfortable with 4 more years of Obama than I am with Mitt Romney sitting in the Oval Office for *any* length of time. Romney is a danger to America in the global theater. He is an arrogant elitist who will almost certainly draw us into another war, because he subscribes to the concept of "war is money". After all, what ended the Great Depression? ---World War II.

I am not wasting my vote. I am voting for who I believe in, and I believe in Gary Johnson. His record as 2-term governor of New Mexico is excellent. I'm a "follower" of the "Ron Paul Revolution", so Gary Johnson is my natural choice for president, as Dr. Paul dropped out of the race.

Quoting Naturewoman4:

Just like NOT voting, if one votes 3rd party, IMO it's like throwing your vote away.  This is just MY opionion, because I NEED Obama voted out of office.  I think the Country desperately needs Obama OUT!  IF not, I believe this Country will suffer more than it already has under Obama.  Obama has no plans for ANYTHNG.  He believes his policies are working.  He believes things has turned around. 

 When in fact, they have gotten worse.  Voing 3rd Party OR not voting at all, to me, is like giving Obama your vote.  Therefore, helping him to win.  Things HAVE gotten worse so far this yr. then in 2011.  Things were worse in 2011, than in 2010.  Things were worse in 2010, than in 2009.  Obama simply doesn't know what to do anymore.  That's why in the debates his head was down a lot.  He KNEW he has failed these 3 1/2 yrs.  Just my opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)



Featured