General discussion

Locked

Four Years later

By ProtiusX ·
I am depressed. Here we are four years after I wrote the ?Why I am voting for George W. Bush? post and I am forced to consider one of three liberal candidates. Well, I suppose as soon as Hillary finishes her court imposed third recount of all the primary votes (a favorite Democrat tactic to steal elections) and is finally defeated by Obama my choices will be even more constricted to one of two liberal candidates.

On the one hand I have an affable, uncharismatic John McCain (who every Republican I talk to asks how he got in?) who responds to his peers as they purpose tax cuts that it would favor the rich. Yeah. He?s a conservative. Not. He speaks like a liberal (i.e. his diatribe pandering to the liberals of the Left Coast about how global warming has now become a matter of national security) and acts like a liberal (his voting record alone speaks for itself). What is the old saying ?If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck??

On the other hand we have very charismatic, dynamic Barrack Obama (who is loved by millions of Democrats, moderates and left leaning Republicans alike) who talks about ?its time for a change? but clings tenaciously to the leftist ideology of wealth redistribution, socialized medicine and doing away with national autonomy and replacing it with global statehood.

What ever happened to the Reagan revolution? What ever happened to less government is better? What ever happened to term limits, a flat tax and national pride and unity? What ever happened to Teddy Roosevelt?s idea of American idealism (one country, one language, and ONE allegiance)?

For the United States of America to continue on we must focus on borders, language and culture. If not then all is already lost and we may as well reach for our solient green.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

73 total posts (Page 1 of 8)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Not quite true.

by RFink In reply to Four Years later

"... my choices will be even more constricted to one of two liberal candidates."

Not true, vote your principles even if that means 3rd party. If enough people vote 3rd party then it will make a difference.

I have three thoughts on the matter:

1. Voting for the lessor of two evils is still voting for evil.
2. With over 100 million votes for president my vote is a fart in a hurricane, so it really doesn't matter.
3. If my vote loses, so what? At least I didn't support the corrupt two party system that we have in this country.


Edited: formatting

Collapse -

not going will lesser enables greater?

by jdclyde In reply to Not quite true.

I want to vote 3rd party because Obama will destroy this country, and McCain will do the same, just slower.

Will it ever do any good? Third parties have been around forever, but the big two work together to make sure that they are the only game in town. The deck is stacked.

Collapse -

Nobody can destroy this country, the current administration proved that

by robo_dev In reply to not going will lesser ena ...
Collapse -

It looks to me...

by boxfiddler Moderator In reply to not going will lesser ena ...

as though voting 3rd party no matter what is going to be the only way to grab the attention of the existing, corrupt primary parties. Until enough of us vote 3rd in every single election to give the 3rd party candidate a significant (15 - 25?) percent of the vote on a regular basis, those @ssholes in power are not going to pay a bit of attention to those of us who keep this nation [barely] afloat.

Still looking for that purple polka dotted hermaphrodite!

Collapse -

The deck might be stacked

by maxwell edison In reply to not going will lesser ena ...

So you choose to play with that stacked deck or not play at all. I'll choose the former.

On the downsides of a two party system, it might not be perfect, but it's better than dozens of faction-parties. Maybe you'd prefer the European model? Look at the European political parties - lots of smaller and factional parties. The only difference is that they form political alliances after they get elected, and with our two-party system it's done before.

Collapse -

What I am tired of

by jdclyde In reply to The deck might be stacked

is that neither major party speak for me anymore....

one is close sometimes, and the other is just insane.

Collapse -

What I am tired of

by maxwell edison In reply to What I am tired of

Is that politicians (of any party) presume to speak for me.

Too many people have been trained to believe that government's purpose is to manage their lives. As such, too many people are afraid to manage their own. In their quest for power, politicians keep dishing out some reason for people to fear something or other, and people keep handing over their freedoms in exchange for a little security - perceived security, that is, because most people would be better off by NOT relying on government.

How insulting is it to be seen in a way that presumes you can't manage your own life? And how presumptuous is it for one person to suggest as much of another? Sorry, jd, you simply cannot manage your own life. You're too weak, too uneducated, too whatever; but vote for me, and I'll make everything okay. (I know, jd, that you aren't among those who buy into that notion.)

How refreshing would it be for a politician (of any party) to proclaim that people (like you and me) are best suited to manage their own lives?

If I am elected, I will do everything in my power to ensure that government will not interfere in your life, will not presume to know better than you how to manage your life, and will protect your inherent right to self-determination.

That's what I'd say - and that's why I'd never get elected.

Collapse -

Bingo!

by boxfiddler Moderator In reply to What I am tired of

The implication that we are all just needy little mindless sheep to be herded hither and yon as the political need arises is about as arrogantly insulting as it gets.

Unfortunately, there are a few of those out there, and as long as the government 'takes care of them', and the media keeps spitting out its call to victimhood, and they keep listening and taking 'the easy way', they will stay that way.

etu

Collapse -

But there's really THREE evils

by maxwell edison In reply to Not quite true.

Or, as I'd prefer to say, three bad choices: Vote for the candidate you want the least (in my case, a Democrat); vote for a candidate you don't really care for (in my case, the Republican McCain); or vote for the candidate that you might like, but one who simply cannot win under any circumstances (Libertarian, Bob Barr, for instance) AND, by doing so, will help the one you want the least.

When faced with two or three (or more) bad choices, logic might dictate that one makes the choice that hurts the least. There's nothing evil about making the best bad choice.

Edit:

John McCain, by the way, had to make a choice between two bad options in 1967: crash with his plane and die, or bail out and maybe die or be captured. It's not the lesser of two evils, but rather the best of two bad choices.

Collapse -

"There's nothing evil about making the best bad choice"

by The Scummy One In reply to But there's really THREE ...

Except the fact that while this continues, things DONT change!
choose someone that you would like to see win whether or not they are in a 'winning position'.
In my case, Ron Paul, if he is on the ballot, he gets my vote. I do not delude myself into thinking that he has a good chance of winning anything, however many of his ideals seem to appeal to me.

There are other parts that I do not agree with, but overall I think he is the best choice.

How can we bring about change if we all just flock to the most likely to win (told to us by small surveys constantly and news reporters) and use the excuse that 'its better than ....'

Back to Security Forum
73 total posts (Page 1 of 8)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums