Quote:

---

LongStrangeTrip said:

Quote:

---

It's not a waste. I hear a lot of people say they won't vote for a 3rd party candidate because they'll never win. This doesn't make sense to me and that thinking is the reason they won't win. It's not a contest to see who picks the winner, it's our future. Every voice counts (should count).

---

Let me explain; the candidate with the most votes wins (generalized).

Gary Johnson will not be that winner, end of story

---

Quote:

---

Absent Minded said:
Can't decide what  would be worse for the marijuana front and the country as a whole: Obama for another four years, or Romney.
What a fucking election

---

Quote:

---

biggysmall said:
and fuck romney the only reason he is getting support from the media(among other things ) is because he promised to back the israel with what ever military support they needed . probably for the likely future iran bombardment.
hes a snake and 2 face to the worst degree i fucking hope he doesn't get elected

---

Quote:

---

trip forever said:
"aren't there issues of significance you'd like to talk about: economy, growth of jobs"

Medical marijuana is doing that

---

yeah, how can Romney say that shit when cannabis is America's largest cash crop next to corn?

Quote:

---

skatealex2 said:
Mitt Romney got a touch testy with a local Colorado reporter on Wednesday after fielding several successive questions on social issues and immigration policy.

"Aren't there issues of significance that you'd like to talk about?" the former Massachusetts governor asked CBS4 when the topic turned from same-sex marriage to in-state tuition for the children of undocumented immigrants to medical marijuana. "The economy? The growth of jobs? The need to put people back to work? The challenges of Iran?"

Once the interview concluded, Romney was back to questioning the line of questions, albeit in a more joking manner.

"I'm not running on marriage and marijuana, those are state issues, right? Aren't they?" he said.

For the record, Romney said he opposed the legalization of medical marijuana, calling it a gateway drug.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/mitt-romney-gay-marriage-immigration-pot_n_1504805.html

---

Quote:

---

mytehdogizflying said:

Quote:

---

LongStrangeTrip said:

Quote:

---

It's not a waste. I hear a lot of people say they won't vote for a 3rd party candidate because they'll never win. This doesn't make sense to me and that thinking is the reason they won't win. It's not a contest to see who picks the winner, it's our future. Every voice counts (should count).

---

Let me explain; the candidate with the most votes wins (generalized).

Gary Johnson will not be that winner, end of story

---

You clearly missed his point entirely and it's exactly your mentality that keeps us locked in a two party system. It's not about voting for someone because they're gonna win, it's about voting for the candidate that best represents your views.

Also, the candidate with the most votes doesn't win. Do you understand how the electoral college works?

---

Yes I do, that's why I said "generalized". Typically the candidate that carries the most popular votes also carries the most electoral votes, but yes I know that is not always the case.

And I do not think that it is my mentality at all; its the two party system we find ourselves stuck in. The libertarian party has no chance in hell of winning an election because they cannot shell out the millions and millions necessary to air stupid attack ads and get the sort of press that a candidate needs, in this 21st century world, to win a presidential election. Its not as simple as "oh people just think they can't win" , that is crazy; we use the phrase "the political machine" for a reason. Its not like I am HAPPY about that situation, by all means a libertarian usually is more in line with my views, its not as if I am against a third party candidate. My god, our country fucking NEEDS a third party, but once again, reality takes hold . I hope it changes some day (maybe legislation limiting amounts of $ that can be spent by a candidate during a presidential election, for example).

@Biggiesmall ; I watched that video.

I don't know who that woman is.... she speaks some truth (frustration within the party, poll numbers, ect), but I don't think there is any chance. Its awesome, at least I think so, that he did score those last couple states...but look at the numbers here.

Electoral votes needed for presidential nomination; 1,144 votes.
Paul's tally; 104
Romney's tally; 966

Paul needs 1,040 votes (there are 2,286 possible) to win it, and Romney needs only 178 votes. Whoever hits that number first, wins (but of course, some states delegates do not literally "cast" their votes after the primaries (binding vs. non binding delegate votes) take place, so some stay somewhat "up in the air", but historically, they do not change much from the period of the primaries ending to the actual Repub delegate election before the presidential election takes place, aka, at the time when the non binding states votes are finally tallied).

(Phew )

There are only ten states yet that have primaries coming up. I am going to take the time to show you guys all the numbers (I am not just some asshole; I know, you hear something you don't like and you think I am the worst of the worst, I understand).

May 15th; ()= # of votes
Nebraska (34) and Oregon (28)

May 22nd;
Arkansas (34), Kentucky (45).

May 29th;
Texas (155).

June 5th;
California (170), Montana (25), N.J. (50), New Mexico (23), South Dakota (26).

June 26th;
Utah (40).

So a little more math. (this is prospective, or, my opinion)

You can bet your left testicle that Romney will win (at least the majority of votes, for those who do not give all delegates to the candidate with the highest percentage) Nebraska (34), Arkansas (34), Kentucky (45), Montana (25), New Mexico (23), South Dakota (26), and Utah (40). That is another 227 votes, putting him at 1,193 votes, just over the margin.

Oregon (Ron Paul got 4 out of 28 votes vs McCain in 2008), Texas (Ron Paul got 0 votes vs McCain (80) and Huckabee (16) in 2008), California (Ron Paul got 0 votes vs. McCain (155) and Romney (15) in 2008), split up their delegates based upon percentages received.

New Jersey does not. In 2008, McCain got them all winning with 55.36%; Ron Paul won 4.06%, under McCain, Romney, and Huckabee, respectively.



So, if you read through all of these facts (easily all information is found on Wikipedia); do you ACTUALLY think Paul has a chance in 2012?

(no)

Quote:

---

werDehT said:


It's not a waste. I hear a lot of people say they won't vote for a 3rd party candidate because they'll never win. This doesn't make sense to me and that thinking is the reason they won't win. It's not a contest to see who picks the winner, it's our future. Every voice counts (should count).


Even if he does get elected though, I don't see any of the ideas he has making it through house or senate. So maybe it would be a waste...

---

Quote:

---

trip forever said:
"aren't there issues of significance you'd like to talk about: economy, growth of jobs"

Medical marijuana is doing that

---

Quote:

---

Absent Minded said:
And LST, stop rubbing it in!

---

Sorry brah, I know, it sucks

We are going to have to choose between the the two big boys; I will be voting for Obama, and yes, sadley, because he is the "lesser of two evils".

A vote for Obama is a vote to scrape by and have a slight possibility of an America that can keep hold, MAYBE, of the great deal of power, influence, and wealth we have squandered (under G.Bush senior, Clinton, and the worst of the worst, lil' Bush), and possibly progress in some sort of fashion. Straight up bloddy nails clawing for survival style

A vote for Romney is a vote to send us back to the 19th century, an act of destruction against any progress, whether it be women's / minorities rights, fair taxation, foreign affairs.... The way I see it, when Romney wins, we are giving ourselves a death sentence.

And I will be peace-ing out of this country before it falls

(this is my opinion so don't get your knicker's in a twist folks~)

Quote:

---

Azurescens89 said:
For all the Ron Paul supporters out there. Are you aware he is a serious Pro-Life supporter? If you agree with that, then so be it. If you don't agree with that then perhaps you should think twice about supporting Ron Paul...

(Fixed typo)

---

Quote:

---

gardenmind said:
Whats worse a republican that you know doesn't agree with it or a democrat who says they will leave states alone only to win over your vote raid med states and send you to prison later?

---