ISideWith.com

[AUChizad]

I would think if the general population took this poll and then voted for who they actually side with as opposed to the "lesser of two evils" mentality, Johnson & Paul would at least be in a dead heat with Obama & Romney, possibly edging them out.

But that's just crazy talk.

[GH2001]

I would think if the general population took this poll and then voted for who they actually side with as opposed to the "lesser of two evils" mentality, Johnson & Paul would at least be in a dead heat with Obama & Romney, possibly edging them out.

But that's just crazy talk.

Agree Chad. But the MSM gets it down to two parties everytime. Like you said, most times its the lesser of two evils. I like Romney ok, but we could have done better. That said, I like him much more than Obama as a leader. And I am being totally objective there.

[AU_Tiger_2000]

To an extent.  I can honestly say that I have felt the same way about most of the issues since I started voting many moons ago.  I think a lot of people now days are leaning towards Libertarian in these polls b/c the economy sucks so bad they don't care about social issues anymore.

I know I'm in the minority (or seem to be) but I'm not willing to let go of the social issues that are important to me totally for the sake of economy just yet.  After all, Hitler and Mussolini "fixed" their nations' economies.  And we know how that story ends ... covered in gasoline on fire in a ditch.

[AUTiger1]

I know I'm in the minority (or seem to be) but I'm not willing to let go of the social issues that are important to me totally for the sake of economy just yet.  After all, Hitler and Mussolini "fixed" their nations' economies.  And we know how that story ends ... covered in gasoline on fire in a ditch.

I have been like that since I was voting age and even before then.  Want an abortion?  Not my place to say what you can and can't do with you body no matter how much I don't like it.  Want to butt diddle some other dude?  No, skin off my back, maybe Vandy Vols, but not mine. Want to smoke pot?  Great, I can't tell you that you can't.  Want to buy a beer in a 40oz container.  Great, once again, I can't tell you that you can't make your own decisions.  Now with saying that, the first time you drink that 40 or smoke dope and get behind the wheel and slam into a telephone pole or worse, kill someone, prepare to pay some heavy consequences. 


I don't think the federal gov't should have a say so in those things (amongst other things like education, marriage...etc...etc..etc), but if it must be a political issue then leave it to the individual states to decide.  Your state votes on the issue and if it doesn't go the way you vote, you either deal with, move somewhere else or try to have it overturned by starting something like Free the Hops. 

I just want a federal Gov't that will come up with a fair tax code, let business do what they do and create jobs, regulate interstate commerce so that I don't get fucked if I do business in another state, provide me with an outstanding military, and let the states decide most other things.

EDIT: A lot more to that last paragraph, but I think everyone gets where I am going without all the details.

[DnATL]

Was anyone really surprised that likes the Johnson?

[Tarheel]

To an extent.  I can honestly say that I have felt the same way about most of the issues since I started voting many moons ago.  I think a lot of people now days are leaning towards Libertarian in these polls b/c the economy sucks so bad they don't care about social issues anymore.

Well, the only issues with which I am in agreeance with the Libertarians are the social issues to a certain extent.  Regarding the other issues I am a Republican as I have been the many moons that I've been voting.

[Tarheel]

I would think if the general population took this poll and then voted for who they actually side with as opposed to the "lesser of two evils" mentality, Johnson & Paul would at least be in a dead heat with Obama & Romney, possibly edging them out.

But that's just crazy talk.

I think that a great number of Republicans and Democrats would side with the Libertarian viewpoint on social issues however beyond that you'd see where the differences occur; with me, for example, I think that the Libertarian view on foreign policy is quite naive and I won't support them because of that (and the social issues are very low on my political priority list).  As a self-described "Hamiltonian" Republican I have some concerns about the "end the Fed" agenda of Libertarians.  The Fed does need better oversight and needs to be audited for certain but it's the height of irresponsibility not to have a central banking system especially this day and age of global trade and commerce.  Additionally, I've expressed before my views on the mischief that a third party causes in the political process in this country.  I think even Ron Paul himself realizes the latter issue by running as a Republican himself rather than as a third party candidate.

[AUTiger1]

Well, the only issues with which I am in agreeance with the Libertarians are the social issues to a certain extent.  Regarding the other issues I am a Republican as I have been the many moons that I've been voting.

I guess what I should have said is that I have felt the same way about most of the social issues since I started voting.  I have always leaned towards the Libertarian party on those issues.  I am somewhere between the two party's.  Since the Libertarian's never have a candidate** that has a chance, I vote republican, they align closer to what I believe than any Democrat.

** That isn't batshit crazy when it comes to foreign policy.

[AUTiger1]

I think that a great number of Republicans and Democrats would side with the Libertarian viewpoint on social issues however beyond that you'd see where the differences occur; with me, for example, I think that the Libertarian view on foreign policy is quite naive and I won't support them because of that (and the social issues are very low on my political priority list).  As a self-described "Hamiltonian" Republican I have some concerns about the "end the Fed" agenda of Libertarians.  The Fed does need better oversight and needs to be audited for certain but it's the height of irresponsibility not to have a central banking system especially this day and age of global trade and commerce.  Additionally, I've expressed before my views on the mischief that a third party causes in the political process in this country.  I think even Ron Paul himself realizes the latter issue by running as a Republican himself rather than as a third party candidate.

^^This right here.

I align with Ron Paul more than I did any other candidate, and there is a reason for that.  Fiscally, socially, domestic policy we seem to be on the same page.  The first time I heard him speak I thought to myself "Holy Mother of God, this man is spot on!  I shall vote for him and give him my support!"  Then came the foreign policy questions and WOW!  That one thing was bad enough that I was turned off.  Turned off the point that I couldn't even imagine marking my ballot for him.  Now, it were a perfect world and people (dictators, radical coups, terrorist) weren't such dickheads and we could manufacture the goods we need for everyday life, then yeah his foreign policy might make a little more sense.......but it isn't therefore not vote from me.

[GH2001]

I think that a great number of Republicans and Democrats would side with the Libertarian viewpoint on social issues however beyond that you'd see where the differences occur; with me, for example, I think that the Libertarian view on foreign policy is quite naive and I won't support them because of that (and the social issues are very low on my political priority list).  As a self-described "Hamiltonian" Republican I have some concerns about the "end the Fed" agenda of Libertarians.  The Fed does need better oversight and needs to be audited for certain but it's the height of irresponsibility not to have a central banking system especially this day and age of global trade and commerce.  Additionally, I've expressed before my views on the mischief that a third party causes in the political process in this country.  I think even Ron Paul himself realizes the latter issue by running as a Republican himself rather than as a third party candidate.

The Fed should never have been created in the first place. They tried it way before 1913 but Jackson (who I think is an underrated President) stopped it twice in it's tracks. The problem now is that we are so reliant on it that I am not sure we can come off of it entirely.

We didn't need a central bank to handle international commerce. Between the Treasury and Private Banks it can be handled just fine. After all, what do you think comprises the Fed Res? My big thing with them is how much power they wield in controlling the markets and the currency. And theyve done a royal job of screwing both up. We never had inflation before 1913.

[Tarheel]

The Fed should never have been created in the first place. They tried it way before 1913 but Jackson (who I think is an underrated President) stopped it twice in it's tracks. The problem now is that we are so reliant on it that I am not sure we can come off of it entirely.

We didn't need a central bank to handle international commerce. Between the Treasury and Private Banks it can be handled just fine. After all, what do you think comprises the Fed Res? My big thing with them is how much power they wield in controlling the markets and the currency. And theyve done a royal job of screwing both up. We never had inflation before 1913.

I respect your point and I'm not going to argue that the Fed has not caused and/or had some major problems which is why I say there needs to be much more accountability and oversight of the Fed directly by a Joint Congressional Committee.  Further, the Fed leadership should be appointed by that committee, not the president, to provide a greater degree of objectivity rather than political subjectivity as it is now.  However this idea of using anything mutually agreeable as a commodity for exchange rather than the dollar would be literal mayhem worldwide.  And what are we supposed to use?  Fifty plus different currencies for fifty different states and banking institutions within each state.  Take that to the next extreme and we find ourselves within each state trading in different currencies; maybe Cobb County where I live wants and use it's own currency but Douglas County across the border uses something else and doesn't recognize the Cobb dollar.  And what about the world reserve currency?  Mostly transacted as the US dollar right now.  Maybe the ruble or yuan or Cobb Dollar would be better.  Mayhem.  It would be absolute mayhem.  We need a central bank for this reason alone if anything else.

I thought that I should add that it's easy to say "end the Fed" as a political platitude by the Libertarians but there's no solid, realistic solution to the major problems both domestically and globally that it would cause by doing so (including surrendering the status of the US as the only major superpower with a stable enough currency for global trade) unless I'm completely misunderstanding the Libertarian platform on this issue.

[GH2001]

I respect your point and I'm not going to argue that the Fed has not caused and/or had some major problems which is why I say there needs to be much more accountability and oversight of the Fed directly by a Joint Congressional Committee.  Further, the Fed leadership should be appointed by that committee, not the president, to provide a greater degree of objectivity rather than political subjectivity as it is now.  However this idea of using anything mutually agreeable as a commodity for exchange rather than the dollar would be literal mayhem worldwide.  And what are we supposed to use?  Fifty plus different currencies for fifty different states and banking institutions within each state.  Take that to the next extreme and we find ourselves within each state trading in different currencies; maybe Cobb County where I live wants and use it's own currency but Douglas County across the border uses something else and doesn't recognize the Cobb dollar.  And what about the world reserve currency?  Mostly transacted as the US dollar right now.  Maybe the ruble or yuan or Cobb Dollar would be better.  Mayhem.  It would be absolute mayhem.  We need a central bank for this reason alone if anything else.

True, which is why I think the Audit the Fed bill is great. Paul knows we are too deep into the Fed to get off of it now. I would be satisfied with auditing it and having greater oversight of it. They also need a lot less power. I prefer it to be run more like a bank in the traditonal sense, and much less a govt agency with unlimited powers.

[Tarheel]

True, which is why I think the Audit the Fed bill is great. Paul knows we are too deep into the Fed to get off of it now. I would be satisfied with auditing it and having greater oversight of it. They also need a lot less power. I prefer it to be run more like a bank in the traditonal sense, and much less a govt agency with unlimited powers.

I don't disagree with you there; the biggest problem that I have with the Fed is the injection of a political agenda into the fiscal management policies that they implement.  And don't get me wrong this is a very serious problem.  Part of the solution to this problem is more direct oversight by the people's representatives in Congress, NOT the White House.  (*edit: and Congress should appoint the Board of Governors, they should not be appointed by the White House.)

[AUChizad]

GH2001: Given what you're saying now, how did you side with Romney so much more than Johnson?

You must hate some gays and some pot.

[AUTiger1]

True, which is why I think the Audit the Fed bill is great. Paul knows we are too deep into the Fed to get off of it now. I would be satisfied with auditing it and having greater oversight of it. They also need a lot less power. I prefer it to be run more like a bank in the traditonal sense, and much less a govt agency with unlimited powers.

I agree, but who is going to audit the fed?  An oversight committee of congressmen?  PFFFTTTTTTTT!  I do not want Congress having that much influence over our monetary policy.

[Tarheel]

I agree, but who is going to audit the fed?  An oversight committee of congressmen?  PFFFTTTTTTTT!  I do not want Congress having that much influence over our monetary policy.

I trust oversight and appointment of the Board of Governors by Congress more than I trust the same by The Pharaoh or any President for that matter; which may be sad to admit to but it's true.  That kind of power cannot reside in one individual.

[Tarheel]

GH2001: Given what you're saying now, how did you side with Romney so much more than Johnson?

You must hate some gays and some pot.

It was not displayed on my posted results but The Pharaoh was not the fourth highest candidate that I sided with; it was a fellow named Jimmy McMillan of "The Rent Is Too Damn High Party" at 56%.  I had never heard of him or his party before:  http://www.rentistoodamnhigh.org/

The spread between GH's Republican and Libertarian leanings are very, very close (5%) so it must have been his answer on a specific question or two that pushed him to the Republican side.

[Vandy Vol]

GH2001: Given what you're saying now, how did you side with Romney so much more than Johnson?

You must hate some gays and some pot.

Nothing drives him crazier than a lit fag.

         

[Tarheel]

True, which is why I think the Audit the Fed bill is great. Paul knows we are too deep into the Fed to get off of it now. I would be satisfied with auditing it and having greater oversight of it. They also need a lot less power. I prefer it to be run more like a bank in the traditonal sense, and much less a govt agency with unlimited powers.

I agree, but who is going to audit the fed?  An oversight committee of congressmen?  PFFFTTTTTTTT!  I do not want Congress having that much influence over our monetary policy.

On second thought I think that the Fed audit should be conducted by PWC, Deloitte Touche, KPMG, and/or, Ernst & Young!

[AUTiger1]

I trust oversight and appointment of the Board of Governors by Congress more than I trust the same by The Pharaoh or any President for that matter; which may be sad to admit to but it's true.  That kind of power cannot reside in one individual.

I don't want Barry to have it either.  That is where the problem lies with me.  Who do you get?  If you get someone appointed by congress then they will give them their findings and then congress will base policy off that.  I don't trust congress enough to appoint someone nor do I trust them with the findings.  I don't have an answer for it.