Seattle Hempfest

[OC for ME]

Well....if Obama gets reelected due to the Ron Paul crowd splitting the GOP vote, the Ron Paulistas can be comfortable with themselves because they voted their conscience. It is all the other folks who voted, incorrectly, for Romney et al. who got Obama reelected....right?

 

[jbone]

...conscience.

The Liberals have their fingers crossed that you and others will indeed vote with what they have not.

 

[gogodawgs]

Jeff you should bring the wife up one of these Sunday's Starbucks 10 am. The more the merrier.

My goal in voting isn't simply to vote Obama out but to vote my conscience, Ron Paul even though a politician has a voting record and an agenda that adhere's closer to the constitution than any of the other candidates. I don't agree with him on everything but at least he backs his viewpoints up constitutionally.

Rob,

I am going to ask you the question because you will address it in a unique manner.

Is voting your "conscience" a bit Pollyanna?

Politics is not a purist convention of man, it is a brutal battle of ideas where there are winners and losers. Elections mean things and they have consequences (SCOTUS nominations) that have lasting effects.

 

[marshaul]

Well....if Obama gets reelected due to the Ron Paul crowd splitting the GOP vote, the Ron Paulistas can be comfortable with themselves because they voted their conscience. It is all the other folks who voted, incorrectly, for Romney et al. who got Obama reelected....right?

Listen, I've been voting libertarian party ticket for years simply because I reject this BS notion that voting out of principle rather than strategy is a "waste". That notion is precisely why we're in the mess we are, and if I vote for Paul, it's because I can, as matter of principle, justify such a vote. Strategy be damned. The "strategy" you espouse has forced upon us a bipartisan monster of insatiable statism, two sides of a single coin of tyranny.

Enough is enough.

Obama is just Bush's 3rd term anyway. WTF is Romney going to do different?

 

[OC for ME]

I espoused nothing. I stated that the Ron Paulistas can be comfortable with themselves and blame everybody else if Obama gets reelected. Just as the Ross Perotistas could be comfortable with themselves for getting Clinton elected.

 

[jbone]

..Ron Paulistas can be comfortable with themselves and blame everybody else if Obama gets reelected.

OMG!

But does transition back into Hempfest since it was mentioned blaming Seattle for Hempfest organizers inability to think for themselves.

 

[marshaul]

I espoused nothing.

The implication is clear.

Of course, Perot voters can feel however they please about Clinton being elected, since they had nothing to do with it. They voted for, you know, Perot.

 

[Metalhead47]

The implication is clear.

Of course, Perot voters can feel however they please about Clinton being elected, since they had nothing to do with it. They voted for, you know, Perot.

Which, y'know, got Clinton elected....

Rob,

I am going to ask you the question because you will address it in a unique manner.

Is voting your "conscience" a bit Pollyanna?

Politics is not a purist convention of man, it is a brutal battle of ideas where there are winners and losers. Elections mean things and they have consequences (SCOTUS nominations) that have lasting effects.

And just out of curiosity, who are YOU voting for?

I espoused nothing. I stated that the Ron Paulistas can be comfortable with themselves and blame everybody else if Obama gets reelected. Just as the Ross Perotistas could be comfortable with themselves for getting Clinton elected.

Why does there have to be such bad blood here? The situation is pretty simple for me. If WA actually had a primary election this year, I'd vote for Ron Paul, but come the general election, I'm voting for whoever is NOT Obama. This will most likely be a Republican. Which is still much better than a liberal. A libertarian-in-Republican's-clothing would be nice, but I just don't see that happening. Unfortunate too, since I really think RP COULD beat obama, since his message is just so different. But anyways, here in the REAL WORLD, Mewt Romnich is the lesser evil to komrade obama.

 

[marshaul]

Which, y'know, got Clinton elected....

No, I'm pretty sure that was a bunch of idiots voting the party line and "strategically" selecting "a lesser of two evils". You know, people who voted for Clinton.

 

[OC for ME]

As for me, I'll vote for anyone on the ballot other than Obama, even Ron Paul. Which is ironic, I would then become a Ron Paulista by default. Nothing against Ron Paul, just being consistent, We advocate that we here work towards a common goal for our 2A right at the state level and the national level. Luckily, there is no nomination battle for the 2A.

 

[Metalhead47]

No, I'm pretty sure that was a bunch of idiots voting the party line and "strategically" selecting "a lesser of two evils". You know, people who voted for Clinton.

Have to disagree with you there. If all those Perot voters had voted for the guy who both had a chance of winning AND would do less damage, Clinton, his AWB, lame duck recession, et al, would not have happened.

 

[marshaul]

Have to disagree with you there. If all those Perot voters had voted for the guy who both had a chance of winning AND would do less damage, Clinton, his AWB, lame duck recession, et al, would not have happened.

I give HW credit where due, but a continuation of his presidency would have been no better for those struggling against the insidious encroachment of the state into everyday life. The whole partisan mess is tailor-made to allow each party to take turns at each advancing their own pet issues of control. The other side essentially never undoes the "damage" caused by their opponents. Whether they trade off every 4 years or 8 is simply determined by the immediacy of the regular necessity to pander to Americans' fantasies of political choice. It makes no difference in the long run.

 

[OC for ME]

I give HW credit where due, but a continuation of his presidency would have been no better for those struggling against the insidious encroachment of the state into everyday life. The whole partisan mess is tailor-made to allow each party to take turns at each advancing their own pet issues of control. The other side essentially never undoes the "damage" caused by their opponents. Whether they trade off every 4 years or 8 is simply determined by the immediacy of the regular necessity to pander to Americans' fantasies of political choice. It makes no difference in the long run.

Bingo.

But I'll take the back and forth because you just never know when some dude will break with tradition. Granted RP would likely be that dude.

If all the loony libs who want weed made legal voted for RP, Obama would not even run for a second term. if they could remember to get up to vote that is.

 

[OC for ME]

Did I inadvertently swerve back onto topic?......:uhoh:

 

[OC for ME]

If you look at the state by state breakdown you will see that if the Perot voters voted for Bush then Clinton would have lost in a land slide. Remember, Bush was a known quantity and Clinton was not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992

So, Perot voters got Clinton elected. It did not help Bush that folks did in fact read Bush's lips AND believed him.

 

[Metalhead47]

I give HW credit where due, but a continuation of his presidency would have been no better for those struggling against the insidious encroachment of the state into everyday life. The whole partisan mess is tailor-made to allow each party to take turns at each advancing their own pet issues of control. The other side essentially never undoes the "damage" caused by their opponents. Whether they trade off every 4 years or 8 is simply determined by the immediacy of the regular necessity to pander to Americans' fantasies of political choice. It makes no difference in the long run.

There's much validity to what you say, however, what else is one to do? Withdraw from the entire political process (refuse to vote), then complain when nothing goes their way, or vote for the lesser of evils when such is necessary while supporting candidates at the local level who are "not-evil*" with hopes they may one day be a real choice?

*Let's start with a goal of "not-evil." Politicians who are actually "good" probably can't exist.

Bingo.

But I'll take the back and forth because you just never know when some dude will break with tradition. Granted RP would likely be that dude.

If all the loony libs who want weed made legal voted for RP, Obama would not even run for a second term. if they could remember to get up to vote that is.

Then there's the peaceniks who want all the troops home, Obama irritated them mightily... big contingent there

 

[OC for ME]

There are only peaceniks in a case by case basis. True pacifists are microscopically small in number.

 

[slapmonkay]

I think ill vote for the only candidate that's perfect in my eyes, hell he is good enough to already be president. Ill vote Obama. #JustSayin

I hope most of you know this is a joke

EDIT: Since it was not clear to some folks, there is a white text above that states 'I hope most of you know this is a joke'. You have to drag your mouse over the area to read it.

 

[Metalhead47]

There are only peaceniks in a case by case basis. True pacifists are microscopically small in number.

That's why I said peacenik. To differentiate from actual pacifists or those who disagree with such things on constitutional grounds.

 

[marshaul]

If all the loony libs who want weed made legal voted for RP, Obama would not even run for a second term. if they could remember to get up to vote that is.

RP would clean up in California. I suspect it would stun everybody.