Voting For The Lesser Evil
The comment nesting under Is This What You Really Want has reached critical mess so I am starting a new thread to continue the discussion RE voting for Robamaney simply to vote AGAINST Obama….
Daedalus said:
OK Dave, I have no love for Romney, He is just another “middle of the road progressive.†The idiot gracing our executive office presently has already done incalculable damage to the country both before and after taking office.
I think another four years of marxist leadership will be the death knell for the Republic. That is my personal opinion. I am not going to put a feather on O’Bamas side of the scales if I can help it. That includes voting for someone else or not voting at all, too much is at stake. Our dear president is trying to put the final nail in the coffin of the Republic.
Now the previous burst of emotional rhetoric here is just that, but I can if needed back up the rhetoric with fact.
I happen to agree with the probability that another Obama win would be the (temporary) end of the Republic (as does no less authority than Dr. Thomas Sowell). However, I disagree from the position that one has a moral duty to vote one’s conscience.
At best, all a Robamaney administration would do is SLOW the destruction of the Republic. If I thought for one second that Robamaney would actually turn things in the opposite direction, I would be leading his parade. But, I do not, cannot, think that because there is simply too much evidence to the contrary. At best, Robamaney is business as usual.
Ergo, my contention that, if ruin is inevitable, then let us have it NOW, while there are still enough of us to possibly lead a recovery. Another generation and even that is not possible.
Troy
At the point where we buy into their frame that we only have two choices, more disastrous and less disastrous, we might just as well have not voted; we will have willingly accepted their shackle and bolted it to our leg ourselves.
Even taking into account the nature of someone who is driven to do what it takes to achieve such a high office, I still can’t reconcile the near entirety of the legislative and executive branches being such terrible people. These bad decisions, even those of the president himself, are not their own. They are governed themselves by party leadership.
Without the support of the network of connections and funding of these giant political marketing machines, none of them have a hope of election or re-election, for the very reason that the populace believes there only have two choices. Terrible governance is a self fulfilling enterprise, run by a committee. Two committees actually, though they have the same master.
How could a just representative allow their values to buckle under such pressures? By telling themselves that at least they can do some good, should they remain in office, while doing the right thing and losing their office would only allow someone less scrupulous to take their position.
This is less about doing what seems right, than it is understanding the nature of one’s own cage. Vote third party. Do so with your head held high, knowing that while you may not have escaped your cage, at least you weakened rather than strengthened it.
Rather well said, Steel! I particularly appreciated your closing paragraph. Your description of two committees serving the same master comports with mine of the Incumbrepublocrats. â—„Daveâ–º
When a tree breaks in the wind there is no way of restoring it to its original condition. Maybe you can stand it back up and patch it with duct tape, rebar and concrete. It may survive the graft, but it will never be the same as the original. The Republic is strained almost to the breaking point, we can support it by voting the evil out of the whitehouse. I don’t look at Romney as the “lesser of two evils,” I don’t view him as evil, but he is not as “good” as I would hope to see.
Keeping with you broken tree metaphor, John, the reason it was weak enough to be broken by the wind, was that it was diseased and rotting from the inside out. We can keep trying to prop it up to save it, but reality is that it is irreversibly terminal. The best thing we could do for our posterity at this point, is to abandon that folly and plant a new healthy one just like it, which is actually worth nurturing. If they are once again teaching American history by then, our great-great-grand-kids would thank us, and perhaps even revere us for our foresight, as some of us still do our Founders. â—„Daveâ–º
I do think George Sorros’ agent in the White-house is accelerating the decline and fall of the Republic. I don’t think it is too late to save. In the early twentieth century a group we refer to as “Progressives” started a movement to radically change our country. Almost a hundred years later they still haven’t totally succeeded. This may be a low point for freedom and liberty, but the winds of change are in motion. You and I will never live to see the results just as many of the Progressives of a hundred years ago did not. If violent revolution occurs now you still won’t live to see the results, but you will live to see the abject misery and despair of Aurora a million times worse.
Dae,
If I get to vote on which of us I hope is correct, I vote for your outcome. Having said that, I can’t get my mind around a process where a 50% dependency rate cures itself before the nation goes into fiscal chaos then dictatorship.
Troy
Here are two examples of people voting for none of the above during the Democratic Presidential Primaries held this year (yes, they still run primaries when the President is running):
http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/08/twenty-percent-of-nc-dems-decline-to-vote-for-obama/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/why-felon-keith-judd-did-so-well-against-obama-in-west-virginia/2012/05/09/gIQA7GwtCU_blog.html
Yeah, Greg. I read both of those encouraging reports back when they were published. 😀 â—„Daveâ–º
I find it ironic and/or funny, but at the same time I don’t know whether to cry for my country or not. 🙂
Crying is a waste of precious liquid. Arm yourself instead and prepare for the fight that is bound to come.
Troy
You say that revolution is “bound” to come, yet also point out that most people are “Sheeple.” Personally, as I have mentioned before, violence freaks me the heck out. Are you advocating it?
Greg, see Civilization vs. Pacifism. â—„Daveâ–º
How many times must Troy repeat that he is not advocating violence, only warning that it is inevitable, and suggesting that it is rational and prudent to be prepared? â—„Daveâ–º
Violence, war, insurrection are all caused by the breakdown of reason on someone’s part. I would advocate being prepared for the failure of someone else’s rational faculty, be it a government or a neighbor.
Does the fifty percent dependence rate include those on Social Security and Medicare and government retirement if it does it might be a little misleading since many of the people on these programs can get by without them with maybe some difficulty. I have seen advocated a mandatory 10% cut in all federal budgets. That would start to ease back some of the dependency. I agree that it looks like an almost insurmountable task, but I would not want to see the results of not trying. Also there are is a gradation of steps between the choice of the ballot box and outright revolution. I prefer the more conservative approach. We are still far better off than the Wiemar Republic.
Troy wrote: At best, Robamaney is business as usual.
While I knowingly took this out of context (read up for it, it is the last sentence of the second paragraph for its proper context 😉 ), something odd just occurred to me, and I was wondering your thought about it, if you can be objective on it: You constantly say that Obama and Romney are the same, and to a degree they are. Both of them had signature healthcare laws, to begin with. My question is this, and have some fun with this as this idea is actually fairly amusing to me ( 😛 ): Do you think that Mitt Romney is actually GLAD that Obamacare was upheld? Do you think that this also validates Romneycare as well? Further, had Obamacare been struck down, do you think that Romneycare lawsuits (At the very least) would have followed? I am aware that one was state-run and one was federally-run. However, in both instances, the issue was whether taxes could be used to compel citizens’ behavior. I can site numerous interviews when Romney has said that his plan was a “Tax.”
I guess the microquestion in this is: Had Roberts ruled the other way, would Romney suddenly have to go on the defensive as well, in your opinion?
While there is nothing unconstitutional about a State compelling its citizens to buy insurance (they already compel auto insurance), Roberts decision was a huge gift to the Romney campaign. Not only is the divisive issue now on the back burner, the majority of Americans wishing to repeal Obamacare now must repeal Obama first. 😉 â—„Daveâ–º
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe auto insurance has a different rationale behind it than taxes? Can you verify? 🙂
Also, as I mentioned earlier, in my quest to be a professor… would you mind if I asked you questions, such as:
“The left would say x. How would you respond to this?”
(bear in mind that the viewpoints I would have you respond to would not necessarily be my own 😉 )
True, the license to drive an automobile on public roads is considered a privilege, which is only granted to those willing to purchase insurance from an approved source.
Sure, as long as you realize that I am not on the Right, and not interested in defending the Right. â—„Daveâ–º
Bah: I meant democrat/republican 😉
Greg,
I find it impossible to know what another person is glad (or sad) about.
One thing I do know is that Robamaney is running a very lame campaign. He argues with the Obamanation about job creation, which is NOT a function of the federal government, while letting the administration’s trashing of the Constitution and their constant lying go largely unchallenged.
It should be child’s play to contrast video clips of some of the more egregious lies alongside a rational explanation of the truth.
I could give you many examples where such opportunities go untapped. The reason? IMHO, it is because the GOP is every bit as guilty of the same thing. Maybe not as openly and arrogantly, but guilty just the same. Plus, they are equally manipulated by mostly unseen special interests.
Just yesterday, I heard a Robamaney “promise” to limit federal spending to 20% of GDP. Sounds OK until you realize that federal revenue almost never exceeds 18% of GDP. This means that Robamaney is promising a deficit of at least 2% of GDP, presumably forever. At current GDP of ~ $15T, that would mean a deficit of at least $300B each and every year, added to the $17T we will owe by the end of the current term.
Can anyone really suggest that this nonsense is coming from a fiscal conservative? Of course not. Rational people know that, if we actually balanced the budget every year, the interest on our national debt would eventually destroy us. Any plan that does not immediately start to pay down that debt is nothing more than a cruel joke on the American people.
Also, Robamaney (to my knowledge) has yet to propose any serious plan to rein in the FED and put the management of our money supply back into American hands.
That is why I say there is really no fundamental difference in the two. I think as a matter of mutual agreement, they spar over minor symptoms of our national disease while allowing the disease itself to continue unabated.
Troy
Very well said, Troy. I couldn’t agree more. â—„Daveâ–º