This question was posed to the politically vocal members over on a non-political forum I frequent. I felt my answer was topical to the LP so here is a reprint. Apologies if I ramble a bit. Comments welcome.
"Why Jon is voting for Barr:
This is the first vote I have cast to stick to the party line as well as the first vote I have cast as "not the other choices". I disagree with Barr, far too socially conservative even with his recent repentances. I also distrust many of the candidates we had in our primary, because they had jumped to the LP from the other parties either out of spite or just to make one last fleeting swipe at the presidency. I don't like my party being used for ballot access.
I would also like to add that our "primaries" are taken care of at our national convention, for dues paying members of our party, not the general public based on checking one box or the other. I think that the other parties should go back to that and see what kind of candidates we end up with and what it does to the money that goes into campaigns. The average voter only gives a **** about politics now because it gives them something to root for, if the barrier to entry were as minimal as paying party dues or attending a party meeting participation would plummet.
The two party system has failed. The GOP and the Democrats are no longer debating over significant differences in policy. They are fighting over single digit percentages. Either party will take your money and piss it away on mostly the same things, the only difference is that a small percentage of that will go to minor projects that you may or may not support.
What makes it even more distasteful is that while really arguing over minor points, they get the proles so riled up that people who get along just fine for 3 years, turn into rabid haters for the season. Its like pro sports, no one really gives a **** they just want to compete without ponying up and making the effort on the field.
I would have voted for Paul and work closely with many of the remaining "Paulies". Ron Paul is a libertarian who has held office and done what should have been done and I have great respect and admiration of that even if he is not a Libertarian.
So I guess the short version is: In the presidental race, I'm voting none-of-the-above to the world and I -still-support-the-party to my associates. "
Posts
4 comments:
Jon,
While with you on most of your points, there are few things that I'd like to respectfully disagree.
I for one would be scared to death to have o. access to that red button.
It took only one election to get Lenin, Hitler, Neron to grab the power indefinitely. All proficient talkers. Should I mention Abe with his half/quarter of million dead souls too?
Barbarians of all kinds are at the gate to get us, so lets not give them a hand. What if O decides to open the gate to disolve the congress and declare himself a shah? Or commendante. Or gensec. With secret service filled in with Farakhan's men. Military? Pentagon? One cannot dispose a guy away from a red button safely if he does not agree to.
There is a huge difference between a totalitarian state and dysfunctional bimocracy, even when plugged with corruption, judicial tyranny and with its own vicious gulag. The big difference is that it is potentially be changed by people if the top man is not a dictator, while with totalitarian state it is highly unlikely, because their mafia is all over it.
As much as I dislike McCain or republicans in general, I am voting for him simply to prevent a possible disaster.
I'll show my protest elsewhere by wearing orange, but will put my vote where it counts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Uor0Lu5xCI
I ran a Google search on "Neron". All I found were two Wikipedia articles, one about a comic book villain and the other about a French mathematician.
Lenin seized power in a coup. Before you start comparing modern politicians to dead dictators, start getting your facts straight.
> I ran a Google search on "Neron".
The whole thing was what I belied a well known quote. Neron is generic for antichrist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast
>Lenin seized power in a coup.
Coups typically assumes some resistance at grabbing the power that one does not already have. October 'revolution' of 1917 met no resistance. They consolidates power in several events over the time, prior to that. February 1917 'revolution' was no 'coup' either but just a farce, with no one willing to take power in bad times. Google/wiki are your friends.
Apparently, proper grammar and historical accuracy aren't your friends, Bernie's dad. Lenin was not elected.
Post a Comment