Posted on 09/26/2012 12:35:05 PM PDT by koinonia
http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/the-issues.html
Folks, Obama and Romney are eating off the same menu (although Romney changes his diet from election to election).
Virgil Goode is the only acceptable candidate running, IMHO.
Too true.
Still it would be more productive if Virgil and his fellows spent their energy campaigning for Ralph Nader.
:)
Well ole Verge has been a member of as many parties as Paris Hilton goes to; eventually this great, great man will sign up for the Green Party - but I too wish it were sooner rather than later
If each team gets millions of at-bats, he's probably right.
Yep, we all might as well squat for all the difference it makes.
Now, go try to Obama supporters that that is true.
Please.
I believe Virgil is close to setting a record: Most party’s losing candidate. I think this will make four.
Each of us individually might as well do what we can to set the stage for getting an actual conservative on the ballot for 2016, 2020, ...
That's what this election is all about?
Not even close.
This will take 16 minutes. Please watch, particularly the end of it.
What can you do with people who are willing to lie about their principles? These fake Goode supporters are as phony as Chas Bono’s penis. I refuse to believe that anyone who posts on FR and pushes Virgil Goode is real.
So you quote the Bible and support Virgil Goode? The man who’s been a Democrat, Independent, Republican and Constitution party guy? The guy who wants to pull every dollar away from Israel? Doesn’t the Bible mention Israel? Something about God’s chosen people?
That made me ... LOL!
At any rate, I’m back with two thoughts for anyone who reads this far down the comments – take them or leave them, of course:
1. For anyone who is clearly NOT IN A SWING STATE (I’m in New York and no matter who I vote for it is well known that liberal NY City will deliver all of the electoral college votes for my state to B.O.) – since in a clearly non-swing state (dark blue or bright red) we can vote for anyone and it simply does not affect the election in the slightest, why not consider a more conservative third party vote or writing in a candidate? Just a thought. This would send a message to the GOP (who refused to listen to us!!! - the majority was against Romney in the primaries, that is if you put all of the conservative votes together: Newt, Santorum, Paul, etc.).
2. Similarly, for anyone WHO HAS CLEARLY DECIDED THEY ARE SIMPLY NOT GOING TO VOTE for President this year, in this case, a vote for a third party candidate or a write in candidate would not change anything in the slightest (and you should definitely go to the polls to vote for your Senator, Congressman, and local officials where your vote counts more and can help save our endangered country).
I mention these two situations because I think many of us fall into the first category and some FReepers have openly expressed the second.
Instead of creating another post, for anyone who is interested in knowing why anyone in the world would vote for Virgil Goode who clearly has no chance to win, here is a link (4 minute video and a brief article) that captures the thoughts (more or less) of some of us: http://www.sunlituplands.org/2012/08/a-plague-on-both-their-houses-virgil.html
God bless you, my FRiends!
No thanks. I try to keep my head retardation-free.
With witty ripostes like that, you must be the terror of the third grade.
Actually, the way delegate allocation is, it quite possibly could. Let's take Virginia for example. Let's say it is very close with Obama winning by 4 and Goode gets 5% of the vote. If Virginia goes winner take all, even a small single digit take by Goode could give Obama those delegates. The closer the race, the more third party candidates can change the outcome (talk to Nader and Gore about Florida).
Who knows. Maybe you should review all those kid photos you have.
No it wouldn't. There are those who say this every election and it doesn't. A few months back someone was posting some archive.org links form here form 99 and there was a whole contingent saying the same thing about voting for Pat Buchanan. Then in 2004 you had some saying the same thing about Michael Badnarik. In 2008 you had some saying the same thing about Chuck Baldwin. The game doesn't work that way. The party is a business and doesn't respond to single digit fringe calls for 'punishing' the party. They go where the largest impact of voters and money are. Playing the 'punish the GOP by voting third party' is the proverbial definition of insanity.
You want to change the party, you have to get in the party corp. Become precinct chairs and join local delegations, take over your local and state GOP, etc. Get in force during the primary behind a single candidate, don't just split up among a half-dozen sniping at each other. Get in the actual business of the party, not just the same-old single digit percent third party voters that are always around.
That was better.
You mean the photos your mom sold me?
It wouldn't be single digit if so many conservatives didn't drink the Kool-Aid cycle after cycle after cycle.
You want to change the party, you have to get in the party corp. Become precinct chairs and join local delegations, take over your local and state GOP, etc.
Great idea - but in no way excludes voting third party if the GOP takeover fails.
Yeah, the ones of you and your little sister.
Management says we'll bid separately for the ones of you & your grandma.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.