Is Libertarianism a lie?

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by This_person

If you read it closely, I was blaming the candidate for the people who voted for other "conservative" candidates, and the people who didn't vote for not voting. Good. We agree.

Can I go off on the same rant you did regarding not taking into account my response to this accusation previously? As long as you don't resort to secession, fine.


Not voting for the (R) regardless, voting for the best of the candidates who have a shot to win. There is a difference.

Again, as I say, McCain was everyone's RINO and, suddenly, he's the defender of the faith. Does not compute.

If he is, then, surely, the GOP will nominate him again and many will vote for him again for the exact same reasons.

[Bann (Premo)]

Originally Posted by ImnoMensa

One of the problems as I see it is that the primary system we have sucks.

New Hampshire by their law always gets first shot. New Hampshire Yankee's do not represent me. Their views are not mine. Why should they have a great influence over the candidate I get?

Primary day should be the same day in every state. It would stop all the month's long campaigning bull#### and would allow voters to get behind one man early on.

This system being dragged out month after month just plain sucks.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Punishment? I think it was wrong to vote for someone you don't support, so, I didn't. You people are the ones that get all up in arms that there was no other choice.

So now, the GOP has it's civil war sorting out those who ACTUALLY support McCain and the move to the left and those who didn't support him but voted for him anyway.

The McCain faction gets to play the same game you people play; "Results are all that matter! John got 60 million! Now, we need to move just a little more to the left and we're gold!"

Here is where your problem is. You’re hung up on the general election. Once McCain became the nominee I supported him. In the primary I didn't. Your theory falls apart in the primary because you can't explain how so many CONSERVATIVES could have allowed McCain to get nominated in the first place. They certainly had the power to stop him from winning in the general, but somehow they couldn't stop it in the primary. If the numbers are there, it makes no sense. I don’t think the numbers were there. The swing to the left in this country is evident.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by ImnoMensa

Primary day should be the same day in every state. It would stop all the month's long campaigning bull#### and would allow voters to get behind one man early on.

This system being dragged out month after month just plain sucks.

But given Larry's belief that the GOP (even the country as a whole) is overwhelmingly conservative it shouldn't have matter in any state. McCain should not have become the nominee. Conservative republicans came out in force in the general to vote against McCain with either a non-vote or third party. Where were they in the primaries? What's your theory on this (since Larry wont answer).

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Your theory falls apart in the primary because you can't explain how so many CONSERVATIVES could have allowed McCain to get nominated in the first place.

Someone else tried this earlier and you don't care;

10 candidates all jockying for the same votes, 9 of them get 9.9 percent the last one gets 10 percent. Does that mean the 10 percenter had better support? or is it that 5 out of the other 9 were very similiar, to the point that there wasnt a difference between them, thereby making their plank supported by 50%, and the 10 percenter only had support of those 10 percent?

This very simple, actually. Romney, Huck, Thompson, Paul, the conservative vote was split early on. That allowed McCain to survive Iowa, get to New Hampshire, scrape by in Carolina and then build from there.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Someone else tried this earlier and you don't care;

This very simple, actually. Romney, Huck, Thompson, Paul, the conservative vote was split early on. That allowed McCain to survive Iowa, get to New Hampshire, scrape by in Carolina and then build from there.

That’s not how it factored out Larry. McCain took 31 states with 50% of the vote. Huckabee took another 40% of the vote leaving ~10% to be divied among the other candidates. And McCain didn't take Iowa, Huckabee did. In fact McCain didn't even place 2nd or 3rd in Iowa. So a conservative (Huck) goes in winning with a lurch in Iowa, another conservative (Romney) taking second, and another conservative (Thompson) taking 3rd in a predominately conservative voting pool and they all lose.

[Libertarian]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

No, no, no. See, McCain won. That's it. He is, OBVIOUSLY, exactly what Americans wanted or, duh, he would not have won.

I hope that is sarcasm. If not, then let me explain:

There are, say, 3 candidates running in the primaries on a given party's ticket (in this case the GOP). Among them, one of them (McCain) is the least favored because of his rather liberal views and his past voting record. So, 60% of GOP primary voters oppose McCain. Among those that oppose McCain, half of them vote for Romney (30%), and half of them vote for Huckabee (30%), leaving McCain with 40% of the vote (and more votes than Romney or Huckabee) despite him being the least favored candidate among the GOP. So, don't "duh" me, it makes yourself sound stupid.

[Libertarian]

Originally Posted by Libertarian

I hope that is sarcasm. If not, then let me explain:

There are, say, 3 candidates running in the primaries on a given party's ticket (in this case the GOP). Among them, one of them (McCain) is the least favored because of his rather liberal views and his past voting record. So, 60% of GOP primary voters oppose McCain. Among those that oppose McCain, half of them vote for Romney (30%), and half of them vote for Huckabee (30%), leaving McCain with 40% of the vote (and more votes than Romney or Huckabee) despite him being the least favored candidate among the GOP. So, don't "duh" me, it makes yourself sound stupid.

Now, a perfect system (excluding crossover votes) would allow voters to pick a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice if there are 3 candidates. Then, the 1st choice would be given 3 "points," the 2nd choice would be given 2 "points," and the 3rd choice would be given 1 "point." That way, in the above example, Huckabee and Romney would be tied for the lead and McCain would be in last place, since, according to this example, he was the worse choice among the people.

[chernmax (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

And this distinguishes McCain from Obama how?

Try and keep up by reading the question I was answering!!!

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Libertarian

I hope that is sarcasm.

When backed in a corner, that's all he has left.