[quote]Mufasa wrote:
LOL!
I’d vote for you Zeb!
(Which State would you deliver for Romney? LOL!)
Mufasa[/quote]
Why all of them Mufasa! With my dynamic take no prisoners attitude I would be a big hit—Err no I guess I wouldn’t. 
I HATE ROMNEY!!! Oops sorry I’ve been hanging around Sloth too long…LOL
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Ummmmmm…
Interesting thought, Sloth.
Rand is young enough to solidify a fairly strong and influential 3rd Party…BUT
“The Devil is Always in the Details” of what the platform will truly be. (Ask Ross Perot).
As far as a party with “true” (as defined by you and some others) conservative voice?
I honestly don’t know WHAT the option is.
Mufasa[/quote]
What most forget about a third party is the great amount of money needed. Perot poured in about about 2 billion of his own money in running for President and establishing beach heads in the many places across America. Everyone is all excited in the beginning and then reality hits and many need to be paid. Then there’s rents, fees etc. It will take the backing of someone a whole lot richer than the Paul’s. They would probably need one of those (according to Obamawitz) “evil” billionaires to pull that off.
One final thought, if an independent were elected to the Presidency he would have to work with a House and Senate made up mostly of Republicans and Democrats. Now that would be fun to watch.
Paul will not launch a third party candidacy.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Ummmmmm…
Interesting thought, Sloth.
Rand is young enough to solidify a fairly strong and influential 3rd Party…BUT
“The Devil is Always in the Details” of what the platform will truly be. (Ask Ross Perot).
As far as a party with “true” (as defined by you and some others) conservative voice?
I honestly don’t know WHAT the option is.
Mufasa[/quote]
Rand doesn’t need a third party, he’s got a movement already brewing in the Republican party. He needs only to grow it faster than the progressive republican faction. As for conservatives, probably increasingly registered as independents until someone, or some persons, can attract them to a new party. Why stick around in a party that embarrassed by it’s defining characteristic, the social? And no need to wrap true in quotes. ‘Conservatism’ weak on the social aspect, even missing it, is simply libertarianism. Conservatives are not libertarians. Libertarians are not conservatives.
Sloth:
I am no spokesperson for either Liberals or Conservatives…
But I DO know that when people start defining by some list of select criteria who holds the true mantle of a political philosophy…you get into some very messy territory.
So I do feel a need to still put “true” in quotes.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Sloth:
I am no spokesperson for either Liberals or Conservatives…
But I DO know that when people start defining by some list of select criteria who holds the true mantle of a political philosophy…you get into some very messy territory.
So I do feel a need to still put “true” in quotes.
Mufasa [/quote]
Well, I could say I’m a prolife, traditional marriage, anti-welare state progressive to push the point I was making. There is no such as a fiscal conservative, basically. That’s a libertarian.
For whatever it’s worth…
Judge Napolitano HAS coined a term that he calls “Conservative Libertarianism”.
Mufasa
(…The Lion pauses as Sloth’s HEAD explodes…!)
LOL!
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
(…The Lion pauses as Sloth’s HEAD explodes…!)
LOL!
Mufasa[/quote]
I wrap my head with duct tape before browsing this forum.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Now here is the key factor that no one is yet talking about. All of these call them “Crucial” swing states have republican governors!
[/quote]
Except Snyder is more hated every day in Michigan. I hear a lot of people talking about how sorry they are they voted for him. Rommney does have a large following here though due to his fathers legacy.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
We are just talking about the primary. However, Florida is a critical “swing state” for both parties. Along with the PA, OH, WI, MI, VA, NC, IA, MO, NM, CO, NV, MO. The other states are either blue or red. Out of the crucial swing states that I’ve listed There are four really key states with the most electoral votes. Those are:
Florida- 29
Pennsylvania- 20
Ohio- 18
Michigan- 16
If you add up the numbers above that equals 83 electoral votes. All of the remaining swing states combined are a total of 64 electoral votes. That makes these four states the most crucial of the swing states and virtually assures that both parties will be dumping the most money in these four states. Now here is the key factor that no one is yet talking about. All of these call them “Crucial” swing states have republican governors!
There are a total of 538 electoral votes up for grabs and 270 wins the race. The red states equal a total 165 electoral votes. The blue states equal a total of 178 electoral votes. But here’s the catch, with Romney as the nominee Massachuetts then gets taken away from the blue state catagory and into the red state. So the republicans pick up 11 more electoral votes. Giving the republicans 176 electoral vote lock. If they pick up the four “crucial” states that I listed above 176 + 83 = 259 they are now only 11 electoral votes short of winning the Presidency. Throw in New Hampshire’s 4 votes, which will swing Romney’s way and we are up to 263. That means if they win MO, CO, or NC they’ve won the Presidency.
The above scenario is one more reason that we can win with Romney and much more difficult to win with any of the other candidates.
For example Santorum would never win Mass on his best day. And there are less than a handful of swing states
which can equal Massachusetts 11 electoral votes.
Electorally this is an uphill climb for Obama with Mitt Romney as the nominee![/quote]
Thanks for that analysis, Zeb!
It is working out to be a VERY interesting election year!
Mufasa[/quote]
It really is far more interesting than the McCain fiasco four years ago. This is going to be a real horse race. Perhaps not on par with the Bush/Gore race of 2000, but certainly I don’t see a blow out coming in either direction. Do you Mufasa? [/quote]
Agree! (I GUARANTEE every voting district is HOPEFULLY making sure that they aren’t using punch cards of any sort! NO CHADS! This election needs to be over and done with!)
Yea, Zeb. I think that it’s going to be one of those “long line” elections, that will go late into the night before it will be decided. The only thing that will change all this is some major mistake by Romney and/or the President or some major event of some sort.
Mufasa
[/quote]
Very true. What most people don’t realize is that 70% of the country isn’t even paying attention yet. But about 30-45 days out people are going to look up from their cocoon take a quick look at Obama and what he’s done and didn’t do. Then take an equally fast look at Romney and make their choice.
Reflecting on all this Bane capital business and what the unemployment stats are currently will mean nothing–absolutely nothing. The only thing that will matter are the numbers 30 days out and the voters gut reaction to both men. This all happens on an emotional level far more than the talking heads would have you believe.[/quote]
Zeb I bet it’s even more than 70% not paying attention.
[/quote]
Right now a little less than one third (combined) on each side of the spectrum (far right, far left) are paying attention. Out of the remaing folks about half of them won’t even vote. Isn’t that interesting? They can’t be bothered to take part in the process. But those who do will decide sometime after Halloween. And they will do so using very superficial methods. That’s why a physically attractive candidates like Obama, or Romney have the best chance of winning almost regardless of where they stand on the issues.
I guess the first thing that all of us who are currently contributing to this thread have to realize is that most are not like us. They not only do not understand the subtleties, they don’t even understand the basics and moreover THEY DON’T CARE.
How does all that make you feel?
[/quote]
I agree with you completely. I think it’s terrible for our nation.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Sloth:
I am no spokesperson for either Liberals or Conservatives…
But I DO know that when people start defining by some list of select criteria who holds the true mantle of a political philosophy…you get into some very messy territory.
So I do feel a need to still put “true” in quotes.
Mufasa [/quote]
Well, I could say I’m a prolife, traditional marriage, anti-welare state progressive to push the point I was making. There is no such as a fiscal conservative, basically. That’s a libertarian.
[/quote]
A political philosophy is only relevant if we can predict what a person will do because of ones belief in that philosophy. The word conservative doesn’t mean anything because there is no agreement on its definition; on the other hand, libertarianism is a strictly defined ethical doctrine. It refers to a specific set of actions – i.e., adherence to the nonaggression axiom and minding ones own business.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Sloth:
I am no spokesperson for either Liberals or Conservatives…
But I DO know that when people start defining by some list of select criteria who holds the true mantle of a political philosophy…you get into some very messy territory.
So I do feel a need to still put “true” in quotes.
Mufasa [/quote]
Well, I could say I’m a prolife, traditional marriage, anti-welare state progressive to push the point I was making. There is no such as a fiscal conservative, basically. That’s a libertarian.
[/quote]
A political philosophy is only relevant if we can predict what a person will do because of ones belief in that philosophy. The word conservative doesn’t mean anything because there is no agreement on its definition; on the other hand, libertarianism is a strictly defined ethical doctrine. It refers to a specific set of actions – i.e., adherence to the nonaggression axiom and minding ones own business.[/quote]
Well, you have Randian libertarians. You’d say they’re breaking the non-aggression dealio by not going full blown anarchist.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Now here is the key factor that no one is yet talking about. All of these call them “Crucial” swing states have republican governors!
[/quote]
Except Snyder is more hated every day in Michigan. I hear a lot of people talking about how sorry they are they voted for him. Rommney does have a large following here though due to his fathers legacy.
[/quote]
You are correct on both counts. Romney will win Michigan with or without a republican governor. One more reason to give him the nod …that is if you want to beat Obama.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
For whatever it’s worth…
Judge Napolitano HAS coined a term that he calls “Conservative Libertarianism”.
Mufasa
[/quote]
You know I listen to Napolitano and I like what he has to say most of the time. And then I look closely into his eyes and I think “that man is not right in the head”. Then I get a snack and go to bed.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Sloth:
I am no spokesperson for either Liberals or Conservatives…
But I DO know that when people start defining by some list of select criteria who holds the true mantle of a political philosophy…you get into some very messy territory.
So I do feel a need to still put “true” in quotes.
Mufasa [/quote]
Well, I could say I’m a prolife, traditional marriage, anti-welare state progressive to push the point I was making. There is no such as a fiscal conservative, basically. That’s a libertarian.
[/quote]
A political philosophy is only relevant if we can predict what a person will do because of ones belief in that philosophy. The word conservative doesn’t mean anything because there is no agreement on its definition; on the other hand, libertarianism is a strictly defined ethical doctrine. It refers to a specific set of actions – i.e., adherence to the nonaggression axiom and minding ones own business.[/quote]
Well, you have Randian libertarians. You’d say they’re breaking the non-aggression dealio by not going full blown anarchist.
[/quote]
If Randians are not following the non aggression axiom and the nonaggression axiom is a necessary principle of libertarianism then Randians cannot be called libertarians.
If the non-aggression axiom is applied consistently anarchism would naturally follow.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
For whatever it’s worth…
Judge Napolitano HAS coined a term that he calls “Conservative Libertarianism”.
Mufasa
[/quote]
You know I listen to Napolitano and I like what he has to say most of the time. And then I look closely into his eyes and I think “that man is not right in the head”. Then I get a snack and go to bed. [/quote]
“Not right in the head” is a relative term.
You think anyone that visits this forum is “right in the head”?
Get a snack and go to bed.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Sloth:
I am no spokesperson for either Liberals or Conservatives…
But I DO know that when people start defining by some list of select criteria who holds the true mantle of a political philosophy…you get into some very messy territory.
So I do feel a need to still put “true” in quotes.
Mufasa [/quote]
Well, I could say I’m a prolife, traditional marriage, anti-welare state progressive to push the point I was making. There is no such as a fiscal conservative, basically. That’s a libertarian.
[/quote]
A political philosophy is only relevant if we can predict what a person will do because of ones belief in that philosophy. The word conservative doesn’t mean anything because there is no agreement on its definition; on the other hand, libertarianism is a strictly defined ethical doctrine. It refers to a specific set of actions – i.e., adherence to the nonaggression axiom and minding ones own business.[/quote]
Well, you have Randian libertarians. You’d say they’re breaking the non-aggression dealio by not going full blown anarchist.
[/quote]
If Randians are not following the non aggression axiom and the nonaggression axiom is a necessary principle of libertarianism then Randians cannot be called libertarians.
If the non-aggression axiom is applied consistently anarchism would naturally follow.[/quote]
So those who call themselves libertarian also disagree.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
You know I listen to Napolitano and I like what he has to say most of the time. And then I look closely into his eyes and I think “that man is not right in the head”. Then I get a snack and go to bed.
“Not right in the head” is a relative term.[/quote]
Funny you would mention that, I have a relative who is not right in the head. Too much alcohol…shame really. He said he voted for Obama because the government gives him free stuff.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So those who call themselves libertarian also disagree.
[/quote]
If a person calls himself a Christian but does not follow the teachings of Christ would you consider him a Christian?
If he called himself a Christian would you at least attempt to educate him what an actual Christian was?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So those who call themselves libertarian also disagree.
[/quote]
If a person calls himself a Christian but does not follow the teachings of Christ would you consider him a Christian?
If he called himself a Christian would you at least attempt to educate him what an actual Christian was?[/quote]
Hey, I’m the one that was saying labels mattered.