southsider2k5 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 08:25 AM) Could the Republicans win a national election without appealing to their very socially conservative base? I think there are enough candidates in on the fringes of both parties to make a viable candidate. Perfect example, I bet Ron Paul would have done a much better job in this election cycle than Mitt did. He's a bit crazier economically than I care to be, but a guy like that would have had a much broader appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 08:27 AM) I think there are enough candidates in on the fringes of both parties to make a viable candidate. Perfect example, I bet Ron Paul would have done a much better job in this election cycle than Mitt did. He's a bit crazier economically than I care to be, but a guy like that would have had a much broader appeal. Not candidates on the fringes... people on the fringes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 I gotta disagree with that. Ron Paul doesn't shy away from social conservatism himself, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 08:28 AM) I gotta disagree with that. Ron Paul doesn't shy away from social conservatism himself, anyway. I wouldn't expect you to think anything different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Isn't Ron Paul a social conservative? Strong pro-life and against gay marriage. There is a big difference between Ron Paul and Garry Johnson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Well I asked if the Republicans could win without their social conservative base and you pointed out a socially conservative candidate so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 08:32 AM) Well I asked if the Republicans could win without their social conservative base and you pointed out a socially conservative candidate so... Compared to the rest of the party? Not really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Strong pro-life, anti-marriage equality, and a whole host of nutty economic ideas to boot. Not exactly a broad-reaching "out of my bedroom" candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Americans don't have the stomach for a real libertarian's economic policy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) Marriage equality won on the ballot in three states. Progressive champion Warren is in the Senate. Tammy Baldwin, the first openly gay Senator, was elected. Obama won with a strong electoral vote margin. This was a pretty solid night for liberals. Edited November 7, 2012 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Jake @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 08:41 AM) Americans don't have the stomach for a real libertarian's economic policy Austrian economics iz bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 08:13 AM) Brandon McCarthy @BMcCarthy32 So wait, do the GOPers who are moving to Canada now just swap houses with the dems that moved there when Bush was re-elected? Love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 09:08 AM) The worst part is, from what I know of him, Reddy is a good guy...as are most people here. But this attitude that unless you vote for a D or R (or a winner), is wasting your vote is absurd to me...and unless he was kidding, I find it kind of sad. I've been having this debate with Jill Stein supporters for a while. what it comes down to is what's more important? your ideological principles, or the greater good. I would absolutely LOVE to get out from the two party system, but the only way for that to happen, is if a third party candidate is someone like Ron Paul who has a huge personality, is loud, and forces his or her way into the national discussion. the problem with most third party candidates is that theyre too damned reserved and nice, and play by the rules. As for your vote not mattering, essentially, a vote for a third party candidate is, at this point, a vote for the candidate who you disagree with the most. a libertarian vote is a vote for Bam and a Green vote for Romney. Thems just the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 08:40 AM) Strong pro-life, anti-marriage equality, and a whole host of nutty economic ideas to boot. Not exactly a broad-reaching "out of my bedroom" candidate. On same sex marriage you are mixing up his personal and governmental points of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Forgot to post this before I went to bed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 08:45 AM) Love. at least it made sense for liberals to want to go to a more-liberal country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 08:46 AM) I've been having this debate with Jill Stein supporters for a while. what it comes down to is what's more important? your ideological principles, or the greater good. I would absolutely LOVE to get out from the two party system, but the only way for that to happen, is if a third party candidate is someone like Ron Paul who has a huge personality, is loud, and forces his or her way into the national discussion. the problem with most third party candidates is that theyre too damned reserved and nice, and play by the rules. As for your vote not mattering, essentially, a vote for a third party candidate is, at this point, a vote for the candidate who you disagree with the most. a libertarian vote is a vote for Bam and a Green vote for Romney. Thems just the facts. What does that even mean? That doesn't really make any sense. The Libertarian party has very little in common with Obama. The Greens have even less in common with Romney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Someone on my Facebook wants to move to Europe now that Obama won. Uh.. I just don't have the heart to tell them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 08:46 AM) On same sex marriage you are mixing up his personal and governmental points of view. Mr. States Rights supports DOMA and is a perennial cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act. edit: He also opposed the ruling in Lawrence that we have a constitutional right to privacy in sexual matters. Edited November 7, 2012 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 06:48 AM) [/b] What does that even mean? That doesn't really make any sense. The Libertarian party has very little in common with Obama. The Greens have even less in common with Romney. It means you're "supposed to" vote for Obama so when you vote Libertarian you might as well vote for Romney since you just helped him out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 08:48 AM) [/b] What does that even mean? That doesn't really make any sense. The Libertarian party has very little in common with Obama. The Greens have even less in common with Romney. e.g. A vote for Nader in Florida in 2000 was a vote for Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 08:50 AM) It means you're "supposed to" vote for Obama so when you vote Libertarian you might as well vote for Romney since you just helped him out. No it means that since libertarians overwhelmingly would support Republicans before Democrats, voting for Libertarians means you're not voting for the Republican and are therefore increasing the Democrats' chances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 08:49 AM) Mr. States Rights supports DOMA and is a perennial cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act. Its no where that simple, but soundbyte away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 08:46 AM) at least it made sense for liberals to want to go to a more-liberal country. Well, there are more conservative countries out there. Most are majority-Muslim. QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 08:50 AM) It means you're "supposed to" vote for Obama so when you vote Libertarian you might as well vote for Romney since you just helped him out. Which is silly. You can't out of one side of your mouth say you want out of the two-party system, and say out the other side that a vote for a 3rd party is wasted. If you want other parties or independents to have greater voice, then you need to support them when a candidate appears that better matches your beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 08:50 AM) It means you're "supposed to" vote for Obama so when you vote Libertarian you might as well vote for Romney since you just helped him out. That is the same kind of simple interpretation of election that lead people to believe that Steve Bartman cause the Cubs to lose the World Series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts