sealybobo
Diamond Member
- Jun 5, 2008
- 124,371
- 22,440
See now, you confuse me. You usually hit the liberal talking points right on the head, and you apparently support Obama. But then you come in and hit all the typical Ron Paul talking points, which are anything BUT liberal.
How can you be a tax and spend liberal, and advocate free markets, getting rid of the Fed (which bankrolls spending), and letting failing banks fail?
Young Republicans feeling left out - Washington Post - MSNBC.com
Republicans haven't always been so disconnected. A quarter-century ago, Reagan charmed young voters and won 59 percent of their vote in 1984. In 1992, on the heels of the Reagan Revolution, voters under 30 split their allegiance about evenly between the two major parties. But every presidential cycle since then, Democrats have gained ground. This year, according to the Post-ABC poll, 44 percent of those under 30 call themselves Democrats, and only 18 percent identify as Republicans.
Paulitics. You are showing that you look at the Democratic party through old man glasses. The younger voters don't see what you see and they aren't buying it just because you say it is so. I think they are looking at what's going on through unbias eyes. You are talking about 80's democrats when you say tax and spenders. Parties change. The GOP has changed for the worse. Agreed? So why is it impossible to think the Democrats cant change for the better? And look at these people like Charles. I'll bet you anything if he doesn't vote for McCain, in 2012 he will be campaigning for Romney. I assume this because he has already forgotten that Bob Barr is a hypocritical scumbag adulterer who went after Clinton for what he himself was doing. Even before Bill lied, Barr was going after Clinton. So Charles proved himself to be willing to forgive Conservatives but never liberals. So screw him. To me, he'll never vote for the right guy. Look at all the people furious with the GOP but ready to vote for McCain just because he says he is different. A maverick? Even though he voted with Bush 95% of the time? And changes his opinion like the weather changes in Michigan?
And if you are going to vote 3rd party forever, I sort of commend that. But I don't think it is wise. I think its about as wise as not voting at all. Because the system isn't set up for a 3rd party. So unless I hear thousands of people clammering for a 3rd party guy, we should probably vote for the lesser of two evils, because I don't want to put the worse guy in office, which is what Nader helped do in 2000. Funny though it helped Clinton when Perot ran.