pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
PA2A.org Voting Guide
#41
Camper;34077 Wrote:
TheWolff;34074 Wrote:In my opinion, I'm not voting for a libertarian win. I've voting so that if libertarians get 5% of the popular vote we change the dynamics the next time around. That will get them Federal matching funds and ballot access that would effectively establish the Libertarian Party as a serious contender for the foreseeable future, even after Johnson.

That's good reasoning, and one I might consider in 2016 even with Romney in office. Depending on who the Democrat is, of course. Can you imagine...could Obama re-run in 2016???

Grover Cleveland served two non sequential terms as president.
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Reply
#42
Warpt762x39;34095 Wrote:
Camper;34077 Wrote:That's good reasoning, and one I might consider in 2016 even with Romney in office. Depending on who the Democrat is, of course. Can you imagine...could Obama re-run in 2016???

Grover Cleveland served two non sequential terms as president.

And Obama is the kind of assmunch who would try to go back, I have no doubt.
Vampire pig man since September 2012
Reply
#43
Camper;34098 Wrote:
Warpt762x39;34095 Wrote:Grover Cleveland served two non sequential terms as president.

And Obama is the kind of assmunch who would try to go back, I have no doubt.

There's nothing stopping it from happening. Only limits are on the number of years served as president.
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Reply
#44
Warpt762x39;34103 Wrote:There's nothing stopping it from happening. Only limits are on the number of years served as president.

I know, but unlike Carter he'll actually try to rerun I think.
Vampire pig man since September 2012
Reply
#45
Camper;34107 Wrote:
Warpt762x39;34103 Wrote:There's nothing stopping it from happening. Only limits are on the number of years served as president.

I know, but unlike Carter he'll actually try to rerun I think.

If he loses, his handlers will wash their hands of him. They'll have to find a fresh new face to run. There's a reason they chose him instead of Hillary.
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Reply
#46
Warpt762x39;34113 Wrote:
Camper;34107 Wrote:I know, but unlike Carter he'll actually try to rerun I think.

If he loses, his handlers will wash their hands of him. They'll have to find a fresh new face to run. There's a reason they chose him instead of Hillary.

I think he'll use an executive order to end the two-term limit so the can bring back Bill C.
TheWolff, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#47
kevindsingleton;34009 Wrote:It is tiresome to keep trotting out the same myopic position, isn't it?

No, it is tiresome shooting down the same myopic fallacies.

kevindsingleton;34009 Wrote:We're not making assumptions, but you're right: voting for someone other than the two candidates who can win is not a vote for one of those candidates. We've understood that, all along, but pointing out the obvious is important to keep the fringe element engaged, I suppose, since it seems like you've made something that looks a lot like a point.

Yes, you are making assumptions. Whether you admit it or not is irrelevant. Your posts, and the posts of a few others, show that you do not grasp the concept of a third party vote not being a vote for Obama, for example.

kevindsingleton;34009 Wrote:
JustinHEMI;33999 Wrote:1) In order for either of those statements to be true, the assumption has to be made that an individual's vote has the chance to be deciding, the deciding vote. In a larger election such as this, an individual's vote has nearly a zero percent chance of being the deciding vote, therefore there is no reason to vote for the lesser of two evils. Your vote simply isn't that important.

Since math is so important to your argument, you have to understand that anything greater than zero is not zero, and, therefore cannot be equated with zero. That means that even individual votes "count". We're not talking about individual votes, though. We're trying to persuade large groups of "undecided" voters to vote in such a manner that President Obama is not rewarded with a second term. We'll do that one voter at a time, but the intention is to get many votes for the one candidate who has any prayer of beating Obama.

I said nearly zero percent, because it is. I didn't say 1-2% is equal to zero, and it is perfectly valid to say that a 1-2% chance is nearly zero, because it is, and we do it in mathematics all the time.

You aren't trying to persuade any undecided voters or groups of voters. There aren't large groups of undecided voters on this forum. You're only interested in posting gems saying that 3rd party voters want Obama to win.


kevindsingleton;34009 Wrote:That's simply incorrect. The votes belong to the voters. Not one single post has ever indicated anything other than that. The purpose of our efforts is to try to convince voters to cast their ballot for the one candidate who can defeat Obama. The reality is that a vote for any candidate other than the one that can defeat Obama is a vote in favor of Obama's re-election.

No, it isn't incorrect, because that is precisely what is being assumed when someone says that "a vote for a 3rd party is a vote for Obama." Have you read this thread? Have you read the recently locked 20 page thread? Do I really need to point out to you all the specific instances of someone saying this? Or are you intellectually honest enough to do it yourself? Even if you're not, you said it in the last sentence of this paragraph. That is what you're assuming, like it or not. My vote doesn't belong to Romney. Sorry.

kevindsingleton;34009 Wrote:That's in interesting opinion. Still, it's an opinion.

Didn't claim it to be anything else. We all have em.


kevindsingleton;34009 Wrote:And, we're back to the angry swearing that always succeeds in convincing people to leap to your side of the argument. Nicely played.

There are two choices, in this election: you can vote to replace Obama, or you can vote to keep Obama. Everything else is obfuscation.

Angry? No, not even close. I'm not making lame attempts at trying to convince anyone to vote against their conscience here. You do it by trying to diminish their vote by saying silly things like "there are two choices, in this election..."

Sorry if the swear word hurt your feelings, but sometimes they're necessary to convey the emotion of the post.

Justin

TheWolff;34116 Wrote:
Warpt762x39;34113 Wrote:If he loses, his handlers will wash their hands of him. They'll have to find a fresh new face to run. There's a reason they chose him instead of Hillary.

I think he'll use an executive order to end the two-term limit so the can bring back Bill C.


No, he won't.

Justin
[Image: pafoasig.png]
Reply
#48
When the election results are out, I'll feel the same way whether Obama or Romney wins...and it wont be happy thoughts.
Reply
#49
TheWolff;34116 Wrote:
Warpt762x39;34113 Wrote:If he loses, his handlers will wash their hands of him. They'll have to find a fresh new face to run. There's a reason they chose him instead of Hillary.

I think he'll use an executive order to end the two-term limit so the can bring back Bill C.

It isn't just a law regarding the number of years a president can serve. It's the 22nd Amendment. Nobody can serve more than ten years as president. If FDR hadn't broken the two term tradition started by George Washington, we could have had three or more terms with Reagan or Clinton.
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Reply
#50
TheWolff;34116 Wrote:I think he'll use an executive order to end the two-term limit so the can bring back Bill C.


No, he won't.

Justin
[/quote]

I'm sorry, I omitted a smiley. I think Bill C would have a better chance of winning an election than Obama if he was eligible, but I don't honestly think it could/would happen. My fault for being unclear. See Poe's law:
“Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."
TheWolff, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply






Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Obama floats making voting mandatory, calling it 'potentially transformative' das 20 2,504 03-30-2015, 07:45 PM
Last Post: ArcticSplash
  Nullify The NSA... OffNow.org pinhead1979 2 784 01-20-2014, 11:28 PM
Last Post: csmith
  FactCheck.org - Obama's Numbers, October Update Philadelphia Patriot 0 637 10-11-2013, 09:16 AM
Last Post: Philadelphia Patriot
  Ron Paul Supporters Denounce Rand Paul For Voting Against Hagel… middlefinger 1 998 02-16-2013, 04:44 PM
Last Post: Deal_me_in
  Romney Got ZERO Votes in 59 Philadelphia Voting Divisions! Zero! middlefinger 22 2,897 11-13-2012, 05:58 PM
Last Post: ExcelToExcel



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.