• I was just wondering …

    Are there any Ron Paul supporters (besides me) in the Axis and Allies community?


  • Guerrilla Guy is.

    on that i don’t know if this would have been better in the Pres debate or not.


  • Oh … I didnt know there was a forum for that …

    By the way … have you made your English move yet ? 😄


  • no, i am trying to get my map at home to track my moves and yours with the dice roles we made, i am haveing problems with it and i don’t want to make bad moves untell it’s fixed. i have asked in a thread or two hear and am waiting on a responce. i hope to have it today.


  • Yeah I saw where you asked that question

    I set up the board (I own the game) in a spare room I have and locked it so nobody messes with the set-up.

    I like looking at the board before I move so i understand where you are coming from.


  • got kids and a wife, the only place to set up is dinning room table, living room or my bed. non my wife would apreatiate even if i could keep the kids from it.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Its useless to support him at this time… its like wasting your vote for a third party. I think only once he broke greater than 9% in a primary. His ideas are very different and it will take a few runs at it to get these ideas across, whereas if they were more mainstream then he would be supported.

    So essentially he would have to employ a strategy like Jesse Jackson 1980-1988 and build a coalition of support over 10 years or so and try again.

    Hes got the same problem as Obama… just show up on the scene after a few years of service to his cause and try to be the king of the worlds only superpower. No voter is going to give anybody a chance like that.

    Celery and Edwards have run before, except Celery was running for something since the Lewinsky affair. If that didn’t happen she would be like any other ex presidents wife.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I think Switch was a booster for him too.  He may have changed his mind though.

    Honestly, if Paul and Huckabee would drop out and support Romney, who has a much better chance then both of them and is pretty similar in his stance, McCain would have a 33% to 67% race against him.  It wouldn’t even be a challenge anymore.

    Not to mention, if Romney gets the nomination, he might have a chance to win the White House.  If McCain gets the nomination, the Republicans will not see the White House for at least another 4 years (no, they won’t even be invited to debate on new laws, Democrats do not include Republicans, only Republicans desire to work with Democrats on legislation) because people, like me, will actively campaign for the Democrat instead of voting Republican.


  • @Imperious:

    So essentially he would have to employ a strategy like Jesse Jackson 1980-1988 and build a coalition of support over 10 years or so and try again.

    Wouldn’t work…too old.

    Hes got the same problem as Obama… just show up on the scene after a few years of service to his cause and try to be the king of the worlds only superpower. No voter is going to give anybody a chance like that.

    That logic doesn’t follow with regards to George W. Bush, but I guess the name sold people on it.  And Paul isn’t new…he’s served many terms in the House of Reps (more political time than W.), and has run for Prez before. Maybe forgotten, but not new.

    Celery and Edwards have run before, except Celery was running for something since the Lewinsky affair. If that didn’t happen she would be like any other ex presidents wife.

    Celery?

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    So essentially he would have to employ a strategy like Jesse Jackson 1980-1988 and build a coalition of support over 10 years or so and try again.

    Wouldn’t work…too old.

    Quote
    Hes got the same problem as Obama… just show up on the scene after a few years of service to his cause and try to be the king of the worlds only superpower. No voter is going to give anybody a chance like that.

    That logic doesn’t follow with regards to George W. Bush, but I guess the name sold people on it.  And Paul isn’t new…he’s served many terms in the House of Reps (more political time than W.), and has run for Prez before. Maybe forgotten, but not new.

    If he ran before it must have been by candlelight in the closet for about 5 minutes… what delegates did he have in 2004?

    Quote
    Celery and Edwards have run before, except Celery was running for something since the Lewinsky affair. If that didn’t happen she would be like any other ex presidents wife.
    Celery?

    well ok…… Monica Lewinsky’s ex- boyfriends wife  I cant type her name it hurts


  • @Imperious:

    If he ran before it must have been by candlelight in the closet for about 5 minutes… what delegates did he have in 2004?

    This was in '88.  That’s why I say forgotten.

    well ok…… Monica Lewinsky’s ex- boyfriends wife  I cant type her name it hurts

    Did you have an evil ex named Hillary or something?


  • There’s no such thing as wasting a vote.


  • thats true, but some times it’s better to place your vote on the canident that has the best chance that fits your views best so long as it’s not compermising too many values. what i mean is if Paul really dosn’t stand a chance to win and you have two major contenders for the bid that do have the chance to win (lets use McCain and Romney as they are the two front runners now for the R run) then you should look at these two and decide of them who best fits your ideals. if one fits better then the other then you should put your vote there to help push that person over the other. now if both are too far off base of what you want, then the best thing for you to do is vote (even IF the guy pulled out) for the person you think is best.
    basicly chose the lesser of two evils so long as that lesser is not a great evil to your views.

  • 2007 AAR League

    someone sounds like a big baby. like rush.

    if its not my guy i’ll cry and try to make our whole party lose… real mature.  take a loss like an adult.


  • who was that aimed at?

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Ron Paul is most likely going to run on the General Election ticket as a Libertarian.  Meanwhile he is running in the Republican debates (because Libertarians are elitist, extreme Republicans) to get name recognition in the general election.  Just my opinion on that.  Don’t hear anyone else saying it anywhere else.  But it makes sense.  He knows that 3rd parties usually lose, but 3rd parties never debate against major parties in the primary either, so their name recognition is much lower.  Also, he’s very electable because he’s had what, 11 terms in Congress?

    Anyway, Mitt had a good statement the other day:

    How can you change Washington DC by sending the same guys back but in different chairs? (paraphrased.)

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Libertarians are those guys who get 4 votes that normally go to republicans… right?

    If Ron Paul did that he’d lose what credibility he had left… sort of the sore loser mentality of having no chance followed by having a worse chance. If anybody joins as an independent or libertarian after losing his bid to win in the normal process, he basically is burning his bridge with his former party.

    Look at Lieberman… hes a joke who has totally marginalized his clout and position. He can never be a real candidate again for national office.


  • I never really understand why voting for “the lesser of two evils” is ever a good idea…

    People say, “I like him but he doesn’t stand a chance to win, so I wont vote for him”

    Well then I’ll say, “When has one vote ever decided a presidential election? Your one vote for the lesser of two evils won’t matter either. There is NO SUCH THING as a wasted vote.”


  • never said there was. i was simply stating that IF your primary choice can’t win, then you should atleast look at the guys who will win. you find the one that fits you best then say “can i compermise on him and still fell good?” if it’s yes, then your best bet is to vote for that person as they atleast will get you closer to what you want then the other guy. if it’s no, then still vote for who you origonally wanted.
    it’s not exactly lesser of 2/3 evils. it’s where can i go to get the most for what i want? if you can’t get that in the guys who have a chance then they don’t deserve your vote. but if a guy gets 50% of what you think is important and you can live with 50% then go for that as it’s better then getting <49%

  • '19 Moderator

    I think you should look at all the canidates and chose the one you think will do the best job.  If everyone did that I think we just might get what we ask for insted of whoever is least objectionable.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Yes, Libertarians generally “steal” Republican votes and Green Party candidates generally “steal” Democrat Votes.  I put “steal” in quotes because I don’t think ANYONE can steal a vote.  You earn votes.  But to kinda make the statement clearer for those who do not understand politics, steal works.  Basically Libertarians and Republicans are conservative, thus, a Libertarian Candidate will earn (or steal) some of the votes that would have gone to the Republican party.  Likewise with Green Party and Democrats.

    That’s why Ross Perot was a “spoiler” that got Bill Clinton elected twice. (Bill never earned more then half the popular vote, he was always ruling with less then a majority mandate.)

    In 1992 it was Ross Perot, George Bush and Bill Clinton.

    Perot got 19% of the vote
    Bush got 37% of the vote
    Clinton got 43% of the vote
    And various other parties got the last 1%

    In 1996  it was Ross Perot, Bob Dole and Bill Clinton.

    Perot got 9% of the vote
    Dole got 41% of the vote
    Clinton got 48% of the vote
    And various other parties got the last 2%

    Now, if we contrast that with the 2004 election, in which there was no spoiler, you have George Bush Jr. vs John Kerry and we are talking 62 Million votes to 59 million votes, making him the first President to win a majority of the ballots cast in the general election since his father in 1988.

    This is why Americans who have a knowledge of election history, pay attention to spoilers.  If Ron Paul were to run as a Libertarian, he would most likely have the same effect as Ross Perot did in the 1990’s.  Notice that if Ross Perot had not run, and all his votes had gone to the other conservative in the race, Bill Clinton would have lost both times.  Yes, even against Bob Dole who, for some unknown reason, couldn’t call himself I or me, he always referred to himself in the 3rd person, which got very annoying, if you ask me.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @dezrtfish:

    I think you should look at all the canidates and chose the one you think will do the best job.  If everyone did that I think we just might get what we ask for insted of whoever is least objectionable.

    If the choice is McCain or Hillary then the obvious choice for the one that will do the least damage to the country, is Hillary.

    If the choice is McCain or Obama then the obvious choice for the one that will do the least damage to the country is Obama.

    If it’s McCain vs anyone, the obvious choice is anyone.  Sorry, but McCain is a Blue Falcon.  He cannot be trusted.  He should not be trusted.  We thank him whole heartedly for his service, but POW experience is not something we hope our President will ever need to draw on. (If the President is ever made a POW, I think we’re in a really bad position.)

    Other then that, what does he bring to the party?  Kinda a carbon copy of Hillary or Obama but with a red name tag.  So why vote for the impostor Hillary or the impostor Obama when I can vote for the real thing?

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Well then I’ll say, “When has one vote ever decided a presidential election? Your one vote for the lesser of two evils won’t matter either. There is NO SUCH THING as a wasted vote.”

    But it has in 1948, 1960, 2000 and 2004  just a few less weirdos running on fringe parties and the votes could have made the difference including Communist, Socialist, Green, Libertarian, Independent, etc…

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Probably 2000 is the biggest instance of when a few votes could have changed the result of the General Election. (Though, I think the better of the two men running got the nomination.)

    2004 was not that close.  Bush had 3 million + on Kerry.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    1960 was very close it was a matter of one state.  Also your looking at total votes, while im looking at total votes by state which assign the Electoral votes. If a much smaller margin voted the other way the state would go the other way and the other guy would win.

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

28
Online

15.6k
Users

37.0k
Topics

1.6m
Posts