ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Mostest and importantest again

Joe Farah cracks under The Fear of a Black Second Term:
Do we hold our noses and vote for Mitt Romney? Or do we follow the none-of-the-above prescription?

Based on his long and contradictory political record, I do not have much hope that Romney is going to do a 180 if he wins. I don’t think he will steer the nation on the U-turn course that is absolutely necessary to save us from the brink of disaster.

However, the idea of a second term for Obama genuinely scares me. I don’t believe America could ever recover from such a cataclysm. The country will suffer irreparable harm, if it hasn’t done so already.

While I remain a principled constitutionalist who doesn’t believe in voting for anyone who does not understand and embrace its limitations on federal power, I believe 2012 is one of those rare election years in which freedom-loving Americans will, out of necessity, be forced to vote defensively.

I won’t be voting for Romney because I think he will save America or reverse our dangerous course. But I will likely be voting for him to buy America the time it needs to avoid catastrophe. It’s just that simple – and sad.
Yeah, that's a new one. Principles are important, except of course when they are trumped by the frightening possibility of someone becoming president who is already president. It's disappointing to see Farah buying the usual nonsense, which we have heard every four years since 1992, especially since he is throwing a lot of his hard-won credibility out the window.

Is President Goldman Sachs really that much worse than President Bain Capital? Is he actually worse than Satan himself? After all, less than seven months ago, Farah wrote: "I would not vote for Mitt Romney if he were running against Satan himself."

My prediction: if Farah does vote for Romney and Romney wins, we'll be reading a self-flagellating column sometime in 2013 where he laments having sacrificed his principles and voting for a man who so badly betrayed all the conservatives and the small-r republicans who voted for him. Doesn't anyone ever learn from the past? Can't anyone see how the game is played?

And in tangentially related news, it's nice to see that conservatives attempting to manipulate others into voting against their principles are still mathematically illiterate.
“Any Christian who does not vote or writes in a name is casting a vote for Romney's opponent, Barack Hussein Obama – a man who sat in Jeremiah Wright's church for years, did not hold a public ceremony to mark the National Day of Prayer, and is a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage,” [Brad Pitt’s mother Jane Pitt] continued. “I hope all Christians give their vote prayerful consideration because voting is a sacred privilege and a serious responsibility.”
If you truly do not understand that a non-vote for Romney is absolutely not a vote for Obama, you are an astonishingly stupid individual. 1+0!=2. A vote for Obama is a vote for Obama. Not voting for Obama cannot, in any sense, be considered a vote for Obama. Political applications do not alter mathematics. If you cannot master basic addition, I not only don't want to hear your opinion about the election, I don't think you should be permitted to vote. Negative, "pragmatic" voting is an inherently self-defeating concept that only guarantees the very results it is supposed to oppose.

Labels:

154 Comments:

Blogger Shimshon July 11, 2012 4:36 AM  

WND was part of my daily reading from roughly 2000 until early 2005. Farah actually avoided endorsing Bush in 2000. I lost a lot of respect for him when he endorsed Bush in 2004, and blamed it on his wife to boot!

There was arguably more reason to be alarmist in 2000 (Earth in the Balance!) than 2004 (Kerry? Really?!).

I still find it amusing that I pine for the Clinton days, when the wars were small and the peccadilloes grand, rather than today when the opposite rules.

Anonymous Roundtine July 11, 2012 4:41 AM  

Shorter Farah: Don't tell me what I can do, or I'll have my mustache eat your beard.

Anonymous Roundtine July 11, 2012 4:45 AM  

This could be a new anti-drug message to meth addicts: switch to cocaine and buy time!

Anonymous Bohm July 11, 2012 5:35 AM  

Farah "is throwing a lot of his hard-won credibility out the window"

J. Farah has zero credibility; he is a Bible-thumping birther buffoon.

"Doesn't anyone ever learn from the past?'

A good question. Why does any American still vote Republican or Democrat? They are two wings of the same 1 percent party.

The only difference between the two is that the Dems rely on old fashioned machine politics, while the Reps have abandoned politics altogether and rely on hysterical ultra-conservative 'social issue' demagoguery to harvest votes.

Anonymous zen0 July 11, 2012 5:57 AM  

zerohedge published a composite photo of Obama and Romneys facial features melded into one.

It was very spooky and appropriate.

Anonymous Roundtine July 11, 2012 5:58 AM  

Dems rely on really old fashioned politics: tribalism.

Blogger Vox July 11, 2012 6:00 AM  

J. Farah has zero credibility; he is a Bible-thumping birther buffoon.

Actually, the "birther" subject is one upon which he has built up some genuine credibility. Everyone knows, in part due to him that Obama's birth certificate released by the White House is a fake. That's why it's a pity to see such hard-won credibility thrown away on behalf of Romney.

Anonymous bw July 11, 2012 6:09 AM  

My favorite is the "you get what you deserve" when you don't vote for at least one or the other (you know, all of those choices).
They have no clue that I get exactly WHAT I DO NOT DESERVE exactly because they are unprincipled and do indeed vote (or they don't really care about or know about what they claim to truly believe in - to me, this seems most likely).

Anonymous p-dawg July 11, 2012 6:48 AM  

If voting was going to solve problems, then why do the problems get worse the more we vote? I've said it before and I'll say it again: I stopped voting the day I realized that they were only ever going to let me vote for (or against) politicians. That's like saying you can have any kind of food you want, as long as it's either Welsh or Scottish. Forever. You can switch freely between the two, but can never have anything else.

Blogger James Higham July 11, 2012 7:09 AM  

Can't you guys vote for someone other than Soetoro and Romney? Is there some law against a third candidate?

Blogger Brett_McS July 11, 2012 7:17 AM  

If you can express your principles using one or two bits of binary information (00, 01, 10, 11 to cover four candidates, for example) then by all means use the voting booth to express them. Other people understand that voting and principles have little to do with each other.

Blogger Dan Hewitt July 11, 2012 7:22 AM  

Any Christian who casts a vote for Willard Mitt Romney is a neocon who supports the killing of Afghani peasants and Pakistani children.

Anonymous Gx1080 July 11, 2012 7:24 AM  

You could change "Romney" for "Obama" and "constitutionalist" for "crusaderist" (or whatever) and that article could have been written by a Dem voter.

Creepy.

Believers on the partisan politics scam ran by the Banksters are only good for being mocked. Self-centered brainwashing like "I will not waste by vote against a candidate that cannot win" is inmune to all logic.

Anonymous sth_txs July 11, 2012 7:25 AM  

I left WND years ago when he refused to endorse Ron Paul for president. He endorsed Bush II over RP. Farah is a phony.

Blogger Eric Mueller July 11, 2012 7:35 AM  

When we're effectively going to get the same policies and corruption no matter who is voted in, I might as well write myself on the ballot. I got in enough of those stupid "Not voting for McCain is the same as voting for Obama" bullshit last time.

I don't know how anyone can look at Romney's record and assume just because he's saying the opposite he'll do the opposite. People fall for it all the time though. Alex Jones calls it the Pimp Game.

Anonymous Houston July 11, 2012 7:47 AM  

GOP loyalists are like the procession of doomed fools in The Poseidon Adventure, blindly following an officer down towards the submerged bow of the capsized ocean liner merely because he's an officer.

Anonymous Salt July 11, 2012 7:49 AM  

If Romney should win, will the liberals maintain their mantra and blame Bush?

Anonymous FrankNorman July 11, 2012 7:50 AM  

From an outside perspective here...

Do you know that Romney would be as bad as Obama? Or merely think he would?

Anonymous Locals Only July 11, 2012 7:50 AM  

I think the voting problem begins at the lowest levels. I've watched the big show forever but don't know jack about things like school boards, mayors, city councils or even my state representative. I don't think I'm alone in that error.

Perhaps if we paid attention to the small picture we could flush the shit out of the system via attrition in 20 or 30 years.

Then again maybe they all go to shit once they enter Mordor on the Potomac. Perhaps it occurs earlier when they arrive at Orthanc on the James.

I'll be paying attention to the local stuff this year. For president I'll vote for Romney only because a series of one termers is better then a second termer who is actually deluded enough to believe he's been vindicated.

I don't believe it matters if Romney or Obama are elected. Either will scourge the Shire. Unfortunately it will be with impunity.

Anonymous re allow anonymous comments July 11, 2012 7:54 AM  

2d term obama pushes the overton window left to he point of absurdity

Anonymous ridip July 11, 2012 7:59 AM  

Not abstaining in this case is like asking should I have sex with the white crack whore or the black one?

Addicted to Fed is no way to live.

Anonymous Baseball Savant July 11, 2012 8:24 AM  

Not abstaining in this case is like asking should I have sex with the white crack whore or the black one?

If you pick the white one yous a RACISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!

Anonymous JartStar July 11, 2012 8:26 AM  

It's not enough to vote for him, but if Romney actually goes through with his tax proposals they are far superior to Obama's. Obama's idea of taxing dividends at normal tax rates will cause a flight of capital out of equities and even bonds (except munis). There will be little to no point of investing in equities in a taxable account as 28%+ of all dividends will be taken off the top.

Anonymous Orville July 11, 2012 8:28 AM  

Farah has gotten spooked by the drones flying directly over his remote hillbilly villa in Virginia. Besides, Mittens sure does have purty lips.

OpenID taphos July 11, 2012 8:31 AM  

Should I vote for Mao, or Hitler? Hitler only killed 11 million. Mao killed 40-70 (source: Wikipedia, so take with salt).

Not saying that Obama or Romney is equivalent to Hitler or Mao, since that would require more thinking or argument than I care to do. Just using an extreme example to point out that voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

Anonymous harry12 July 11, 2012 8:38 AM  

"James Higham July 11, 2012 7:09 AM: Can't you guys vote for someone other than Soetoro and Romney? Is there some law against a third candidate?"

I vote only for non-incumbents. Gotta spread that pork around, eh?

Anonymous Joe Doakes, Como Park July 11, 2012 8:40 AM  

Republicans in Congress who would bitterly oppose X when suggested by President Goldman would vehemently embrace X if suggested by President Bain.

As both Goldman and Bain are likely to suggest idiocy, voting Goldman to promote GOP spine stiffness may be better for the country, long-term.

Yes, it's counter-intuitive. But is it right?

Anonymous Smarty Pants July 11, 2012 8:41 AM  

The reason Obama is hiding his birth certificate is because he was born of of wedlock not because he wasn't born in America.

Blogger Vidad July 11, 2012 8:47 AM  

"Farah has gotten spooked by the drones flying directly over his remote hillbilly villa in Virginia"

That may in fact be true.

As for me, I've quit voting. Devil with them all.

Anonymous James Dixon July 11, 2012 8:47 AM  

> Do you know that Romney would be as bad as Obama? Or merely think he would?

Define bad. There's no more than a hair's breadth of difference between their positions. Romney would likely have a willing accomplice in Congress. Obama likely would not.

So in all likelihood, Romney will be worse than Obama.

But at least the country will be being destroyed by a "real American", right?

Anonymous Poli_Mis July 11, 2012 8:52 AM  

The reason Obama is hiding his birth certificate is because he was born of of wedlock not because he wasn't born in America.

Yeah, because calling him an illegitimate bastard at this point is way worse than calling him a lying Marxist.
Better keep everything in place to guard that national secret.

Tell me, Chachi ... why is he hiding his papers, transcripts and academic records? Because he was born out of wedlock?

Blogger El Borak July 11, 2012 9:01 AM  

Isn't this the same Farah who wrote that "... I will also not be voting for John McCain.... He won't get my vote. In fact, to be honest, if the Republican Party is ever going to recover itself and become the party it was under Ronald Reagan, it will happen faster if John McCain is beaten. It will happen faster if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton gets elected and implement the Big Brother, socialist agenda they both endorse."

And

"How bad would McCain be? I'll put it this way: Worse than Bush. Are you ready for that? I'm not. All things being equal, I'd rather watch the Democrats destroy America for the next four years, holding out hope that a new kind of Republican leadership might arise to fight back in 2012."

And then turned around and supported him because of fear of Obama?

There is nothing Farah said about McCain that is not true of Romney, and every solid reason for not supporting McCain is doubly true for Romney, especially now that there exists (and will likely stay) a solidly Republican House. Instead of fretting about what Obama might do, Farah needs to go back and read his old columns.

Sometimes the guy really knows what he's about.

Anonymous Clay July 11, 2012 9:03 AM  

I'd vote for Romney, just 'cause I wouldn't have to see that she-ape cavorting around the world on the tax-payer's dime.

Anonymous Noah B. July 11, 2012 9:07 AM  

Knowing that both the Republican and Democratic candidates are untrustworthy and thoroughly corrupt individuals, the only way to NOT waste your vote is to vote for another candidate. This is the only course of action that signals that the status quo is completely unacceptable. Gary Johnson is a far better candidate than either Romney or Obama. Why not vote for him?

I greatly admire Joseph Farah and am thankful for the work he has done over the years, but he is simply wrong on this one. If we end up with a Republican Congress, there is much more to fear from Romney than from Obama.

Anonymous RINO July 11, 2012 9:07 AM  

The drone that he saw obviously scared him into going this route.

Anonymous Demon of truth July 11, 2012 9:09 AM  

I like evil in small portions. The more truth you add to it, the more my subjects are ready to accept... evil.

Blogger wrf3 July 11, 2012 9:16 AM  

Vox wrote: 1+0!=2

Actually it does. 0! = 1, so 1+1=2. ;-)

Anonymous JCB July 11, 2012 9:20 AM  

In fairness to Farah, he does have something considerable at stake in this election. I remember during the Clinton admin he was audited repeatedly by the IRS (or so he claims). I believe that went away under Bush but is back with a vengeance under Obama. I can attest from experience that even if everything is on the up-and-up, an IRS audit sucks. So he will very much benefit personally if Romney wins. It's a selfish reason, but understandable.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 July 11, 2012 9:20 AM  

This is why Republicans can always count on the conservatives, no matter how liberal or Statist they are. In the end, they always cave.

Conservatives are to Republicans like blacks are to Democrats.

Blogger Joshua_D July 11, 2012 9:21 AM  

I think that the well established truth of MPAI can be somewhat mitigated when some people try hard to not be idiots; however, all is lost when most people are idiots and try real hard to out idiot each other.

I x I = This IS the Most Importantest Election Evah!!!!!!!!111!!!!1

Anonymous rienzi July 11, 2012 9:24 AM  

Farah is the earnest fellow who, while correct, doesn't understand that, for good or ill, the vast bulk of the population could care less about the subject he's arguing.

Since it appears that Farah doesn't understand that the bit about being a natural born citizen no longer applies, I would like to propose Nigel Farage, leader of the UKIP, as our presidential candidate. He's intelligent, articulate, principled, gives a damn about his constituents, and, unlike the cowardly weasels we have for politicians here, will verbally rip his opponents to shreds.

Blogger Nate July 11, 2012 9:24 AM  

2012 is one of those rare occasions like 2008 was... and like 2004 was... and like 2002 was...

Anonymous Cheddarman July 11, 2012 9:26 AM  

I may vote for Romney, as the thought of John Bolton being Secretary of State and in charge of U.S. foreign policy is a once in a life time opportunity for hilarity in our international relations...though the party would be over about 6 months into the Romney presidency, when Bolton is forced to resign or manages to start World War III.

Anonymous The other skeptic July 11, 2012 9:28 AM  

I would like to know what the end-game is for all those who want the UN small-arms treaty signed by the US.

Do they intend to sell out the US for plumb positions in the new world order and don't want the wretched masses in the US to be able to derail their dreams?

Anonymous Kickass July 11, 2012 9:30 AM  

I wonder what they got on him.

Anonymous The other skeptic July 11, 2012 9:40 AM  

Unexpectedly, Multinational forgets about loyalty to the US

Anonymous ICP July 11, 2012 9:43 AM  

Being from a state Obama has wrapped up, my vote already doesn't mean anything. (If my state is even "in play", Romney has already won nationally.) That'll make it easier to throw away my vote on Gary Johnson or someone, which I would have done regardless.

"Doesn't anyone ever learn from the past? Can't anyone see how the game is played?"

I wish I knew. When you are surprised over and over again, you need to revise your expectations. Most people don't seem to, at least not nearly as much or as quickly as they should. Is it just MPAI? Well, that's the name of it, I suppose. But I'd like a deeper understanding.

Anonymous The other skeptic July 11, 2012 9:49 AM  


But I'd like a deeper understanding.


Some people have a built-in, or learned, ability to deceive and manipulate other humans.

We call those people politicians.

They do not have our interests at heart.

That is all you need to know.

Anonymous III July 11, 2012 9:59 AM  

I wonder what they got on him.

The same could apply to everyone who votes for the "lesser of two evils." No?

Amusing, that Obama was the lesser of two evils. So now everyone is going to vote out the lesser of two evils and vote... the lesser of two evils.

Damn, if we just keep that up, we'll eventually get a Saint!

Anonymous III July 11, 2012 10:04 AM  

The two party system is the bell to Pavlov's dog.

Anonymous Anonymous July 11, 2012 10:10 AM  

I think what they imply is 1 - 1 = 0.

One vote cancels the other.

Stupid, yes, but anyone who thinks voting matters (president, SCOTUS, congress) really hasn't been paying attention.

Anonymous Darth_Toolpodicus July 11, 2012 10:12 AM  

"Actually it does. 0! = 1, so 1+1=2. ;-)"

Doh!

Anonymous patrick kelly July 11, 2012 10:14 AM  

Clay: "I'd vote for Romney, just 'cause I wouldn't have to see that she-ape cavorting around the world on the tax-payer's dime."

This is the most compelling argument I've heard for Romney. This, with enough tequila on election day might persuade me to vote for him. Or it might keep me at home in my usual ambivalent obliviousness. Either way, Romney will still get all of Texas' electoral votes, so it really doesn't matter.

Maybe there's something on the local ballots I can work up some kind of opinion or give-a-shit about.

Anonymous Stilicho July 11, 2012 10:17 AM  

Do you know that Romney would be as bad as Obama? Or merely think he would?

If we take Romney at his word, then we can rest assured that he will not be appreciably better than Obama on any significant issue:
Useless war: yep.
Debt crisis: More Fed and gov't intervention (Heckuva job, Benny).
Abortion: More please (via subsidies, see Romneycare).
etc.

Moreover, although Romney is not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination, the results of his (and Obama's) disastrous policies will be blamed on, and used to discredit, conservative (or just non-leftist) policies for generations.

Blogger Panzerdude July 11, 2012 10:37 AM  

Besides the other examples, not voting does equal a vote for Obama. Option 1 - do not vote 1 + 0 = 1. Option 2 - vote for Romney 1 - 1 = 0, in other words, one less vote for Obama.

Anonymous canty July 11, 2012 10:43 AM  

"Actually it does. 0! = 1, so 1+1=2"

I came here to post this. Me: http://i.imgur.com/VAtON.png

~canty

Anonymous Jimmy July 11, 2012 10:51 AM  

Is it possible to vote on principle? Sure, but it is clearly none of the above for a very very long time. It is possible to vote for Romney on principle if the vote for Obama is against principle. In at least one area, the vote for Obama is against my principle with regard to religious liberty (the contraceptive mandate and the tax penalty with regard to religious institutions).

As for voting for Obama in absentia, don't you want to negate an Obama vote at the very least?

Anonymous ICP July 11, 2012 10:51 AM  

"Some people have a built-in, or learned, ability to deceive and manipulate other humans.

We call those people politicians.

They do not have our interests at heart.

That is all you need to know."

True enough, but people go on being surprised long after they should have revised their expectations in plenty of situations that have absolutely nothing to do with politics or politicians. That's what I was talking about.

Panzerdude:

A vote for Obama and a vote for Romney -- 1 - 1 = 0.
A vote for Obama and a vote for Obama -- 1 + 1 = 2.
A vote for Obama and a vote for (as an example) Gary Johnson - Re(1 + i) = 1
A vote for Obama and staying home -- 1 + 0 = 1

So the most anyone could argue is that a vote for a third-party candidate or staying home is equal to half a vote for Obama. Assuming otherwise is assuming that a Romney voter could never have actually voted for Obama. Since all modern presidential elections depend on "swing voters" who by definition could have done exactly that, I'd call that a bad assumption.

Anonymous Stilicho July 11, 2012 10:53 AM  

Open question: Does Farah (or anyone who agrees with his position) expect to get flowers in return for being a cheap date? Will Captain Underoos call you the next day? Did he only "put it in a little bit" like he promised?

Or is prison rape a better analogy here? Are you signing up to be Hector's prison bitch so that Leroy doesn't make you his?

Anonymous Stilicho July 11, 2012 10:56 AM  

In at least one area, the vote for Obama is against my principle with regard to religious liberty (the contraceptive mandate and the tax penalty with regard to religious institutions).

Jimmy, why do you think that a vote for Romney does not violate that same principle?

Anonymous p-dawg July 11, 2012 10:58 AM  

@Panzerdude

No, Obama received the same number of votes in both your examples. The popular vote is worthless, anyway. It's the electoral college that counts. Or rather, that votes.

Anonymous Jimmy July 11, 2012 11:04 AM  

@Stilicho: ???. Let's assume Romney is telling the truth of his positions.

Anonymous Stilicho July 11, 2012 11:18 AM  

So when Romney says he wants to repeal Obamacare and replace it with Romneycare (which also subsidizes abortion and contraception: see Massachusetts) you're motivated to vote for Romney on principle? Please identify that principle for us.

Blogger RCR_Chris July 11, 2012 11:18 AM  

Wait, when did Farah get any credibility back?

Talk all brave & beat his "REALconservative" chest the year before the election, and morph into a scared little girl who supports the crappy republican candidate at the end.

It's been that way as long as I can remember...

Anonymous Jimmy July 11, 2012 11:22 AM  

"So when Romney says he wants to repeal Obamacare and replace it with Romneycare"

The principle is religious institutions are not forced to participate. They can opt out.

He didn't say he will replace with Romneycare, a state program. To say he will replace with Romneycare is a fallacy. Not sure why you made this one up.

It is strange that you asked me to identify the principle when I already did.

Blogger Desert Cat July 11, 2012 11:25 AM  

Orville July 11, 2012 8:28 AM
Farah has gotten spooked by the drones flying directly over his remote hillbilly villa in Virginia.


There's been a drone flying together with a single engine plane over my remote hillbilly villa. Training? Who knows. It's disturbing though...

Anonymous I am 35 July 11, 2012 11:29 AM  

What if everyone who won't vote for Mitt Obama or Barrack Romney writes in the name of the person they trust most for president. Would be nice to send a 35 million neither of you ass clowns vote.

Besides at least I'll receive 1 vote for the highest office in the land.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 July 11, 2012 11:35 AM  

I wonder what they got on him.

He did say in his interview with Alex Jones last week that there was a drone spying on him.

Anonymous Stilicho July 11, 2012 11:39 AM  

The principle is religious institutions are not forced to participate. They can opt out

So, it's ok to subsidize abortion as long as you do it indirectly. Got it.

He didn't say he will replace with Romneycare, a state program. To say he will replace with Romneycare is a fallacy. Not sure why you made this one up.

It is his signature program. One which he repeatedly endorsed during the primary when it would have been politically advantageous to disown it. The fact that it was a state program is irrelevant when Romney plans to implement it nationwide if he can. "Repeal and Replace" means that Romney wants to repeal Obama's unconstitutional, immoral, statist plan and replace it with his unconstitutional, immoral, statist plan. It isn't complicated.

The stupid, it burns.

Blogger Joshua_D July 11, 2012 11:44 AM  

Stilicho July 11, 2012 11:39 AM
The stupid, it burns.


Dude, you're not supposed to look directly at the stupid.

Anonymous cherub's revenge July 11, 2012 11:46 AM  

Obama's going to mop the floor with Romney. Probably won't see a Republican president of America as presently constituted in my lifetime.

Anonymous Kickass July 11, 2012 11:47 AM  

Why would we assume that? Surely you are not that stupid....

Anonymous Kickass July 11, 2012 11:52 AM  

Why would you assume it would make him LESS electable?

Anonymous Kickass July 11, 2012 11:59 AM  

Public figures? Isn't that always the way of it. Regular people or public figures, it is all about baiting the hook correctly. At this point I am awaiting a "On Second Thought.....He Is Not So Bad!" post from Vox. Sorry Vox, hope you keep flying under the radar...I shudder to think what they could get that out of you with. You gleefully admit to so much.

Anonymous Kickass July 11, 2012 12:06 PM  

Who doesn't? By the way, AJ and coast to coast make my skin crawl. That anyone buys that they are Christians is pathetic.

Anonymous Orion July 11, 2012 12:08 PM  

Any of the Ilk with artistic talent? I think a shirt with a picture of the Romney Obama two headed monster on the front above a Goldman Sachs flag and the words "Don't Blame me, I voted for Ron Paul" on the back may be good for the next four years. I get so tired of everyone saying we need to vote for the evil of two lessers/losers every four years. I posted on Facebook that Roberts underlines the futility and still got the "yeah, but..."

Anonymous Jimmy July 11, 2012 12:08 PM  

"So, it's ok to subsidize abortion as long as you do it indirectly. Got it."

With regard to religious institutions, they would not be subsidizing abortions.

With everyone else, it depends if you can purchase a medical plan that doesn't subsidize abortions. With Obamacare, you don't have choice. At minimum, we will have the status quo. Nothing more with some exceptions (see below).

"It is his signature program."

Yes, so I'm very concerned about Romney. One thing I am certain, Obama won't repeal his own health care plan.

Repeal and replace doesn't mean what you think it does. They want to retain some popular provisions of the health care plan in a piecemeal fashion. I don't entirely agree with it since it will increase costs.


"The stupid, it burns."

Okay, so let's keep Obama in power. At least you won't feel responsible for the wreck, or maybe you should.

Blogger Joshua_D July 11, 2012 12:08 PM  

Kickass, are you accidentally hitting the submit button before you finish typing?

Blogger Joshua_D July 11, 2012 12:11 PM  

Jimmy, or should I say Janie, is an inflitrating, psyops chick. You can tell by her passive aggressive guilt tripping. You're guilt trips have no effect here Janie.

Blogger JohnG July 11, 2012 12:15 PM  

Bah. Mostest important election evah! - but I do have to say that the last few elections have really had some stinkers on the Dem side and they do seem to get worse every time. God, could you imagine if Al (the sky is falling!) Gore had won? Or having to listen to that scumbag John (two a-meh-i-cuhs) Edwards? Lurch?

I'd rather have a Dem be prez when the whole financial mess finally caves in - but it's really aggravating that the RNC/NRO/WS managed to put lipstick on that pig Romney and paint over his gay agenda in schools, pro-abortion, ASW ban, Romney-care and tout him as a conservative...

Anonymous Kickass July 11, 2012 12:20 PM  

Entirely possible. My stupid phone keeps locking up and I am multi tasking. What comment caught your eye friend?

Anonymous Kickass July 11, 2012 12:22 PM  

No stay, we need your comments. Everyone else and their boring common sense.

Anonymous Kickass July 11, 2012 12:26 PM  

Do yours make noise? Mine don't so I am hoping they are alien space craft. I am safe then, as long as I have the common cold.

Anonymous Kickass July 11, 2012 12:29 PM  

I don't believe in voting machines. Like Santa, they are just a nice story you tell to get the kiddies all wound up.

Anonymous Stilicho July 11, 2012 12:30 PM  

With regard to religious institutions, they would not be subsidizing abortions.

With everyone else, it depends if you can purchase a medical plan that doesn't subsidize abortions. With Obamacare, you don't have choice. At minimum, we will have the status quo. Nothing more with some exceptions (see below).


Yes, you'll only be a little raped. Do try to enjoy it since you voted for it. Moreover, you are simply incapable of understanding that both plans are funded by taxes and not merely by individuals paying individual premiums for an individual policy.

Repeal and replace doesn't mean what you think it does. They want to retain some popular provisions of the health care plan in a piecemeal fashion.

Identify the "popular" parts that Romney has said he wants to retain along with the "worst" parts he has said he will eliminate.

Okay, so let's keep Obama in power. At least you won't feel responsible for the wreck, or maybe you should.

That's the point, there is no meaningful difference between the two.

Blogger Desert Cat July 11, 2012 12:33 PM  

Kickass July 11, 2012 12:26 PM
Do yours make noise? Mine don't so I am hoping they are alien space craft. I am safe then, as long as I have the common cold.


Without a quote or other reference, I have no idea who you are talking to, but assuming you're referencing my post, yes. The one I've seen has a small jet engine sound and is the correct general size and shape of a Predator drone. I had no binoculars handy so could not check it out more closely.

Blogger GX3Blogger July 11, 2012 12:39 PM  

VOTE 3RD PARTY! It doesn't matter if you're a democrat or a republican. If you do not like the people being offered up, then vote for a 3rd party candidate. It doesn't matter which one, just vote for one! Nobody will notice if you don't vote, but if all the 3rd party candidates combined come close to 20% or 30% of the total vote, people WILL take notice.

Anonymous BillB July 11, 2012 12:42 PM  

If the author of the rant is "a principled constitutionalist" as he claims, he will not vote for anyone because THE PEOPLE DON'T VOTE FOR PRESIDENT IN THE US. Freakin' DUH!

The Framers withheld the authority of the people to vote for president because the Framers KNEW the people were TOO s2pid to elect anyone worth anything. The Electoral College is to be selected according to the method decided upon by state legislatures AND the Electors are to go secretly and choose the President. If this so-called constitutionalist does not know this, he is no constitutionalist.

Blogger Desert Cat July 11, 2012 12:45 PM  

Kickass, probably not UFO's. Looks like they've been extensively used along the border already. Small wonder I see them...

Anonymous Heh July 11, 2012 12:47 PM  

2004: incompetent, unpopular President challenged by colorless, ineffectual rich guy with great hair from Massachusetts. Challenger nominated on the basis of his supposed electability promptly loses election that is his to lose.

Sounds kinda familiar, eh?

Blogger Crude July 11, 2012 1:02 PM  

Doesn't anyone ever learn from the past? Can't anyone see how the game is played?

I think many see how. But they do think that the reasonable choice between the worst option and the second worst option is the second worst option.

Negative, "pragmatic" voting is an inherently self-defeating concept that only guarantees the very results it is supposed to oppose.

What's the alternative? Seriously, my understanding from following your posts on this subject is, maybe, "Support Ron Paul" - but Ron Paul's out of the equation now. If you say, "There is no alternative, America is doomed", then who cares if anyone supports Romney anyway?

Anonymous E. PERLINE July 11, 2012 1:02 PM  

Your not voting for Romney will give Obama one less vote to match for his victory.

Those who want us to go over the cliff and fix things later, may have a point, but the damage might be unfixable for 25 years (that's a generation.)

Romney may be tied to the Fed and be unable to stand on the brakes hard enough to stop the runaway. Right now we need someone to grab the steering wheel and turn it to the right a bit.

Anonymous jerry July 11, 2012 1:04 PM  

FOR TRAYVON!

Anonymous VD July 11, 2012 1:06 PM  

At this point I am awaiting a "On Second Thought.....He Is Not So Bad!" post from Vox. Sorry Vox, hope you keep flying under the radar...I shudder to think what they could get that out of you with. You gleefully admit to so much.

It won't happen. One of the advantages of being a libertarian whose core belief concerns the fallen nature of humanity is that there are no depths to which one believes beyond human capacity, including one's own.

Anonymous Stilicho July 11, 2012 1:06 PM  

What's the alternative? Seriously, my understanding from following your posts on this subject is, maybe, "Support Ron Paul" - but Ron Paul's out of the equation now. If you say, "There is no alternative, America is doomed", then who cares if anyone supports Romney anyway?

Vote for Not Sure. That is one smart muthafucka.

Anonymous VD July 11, 2012 1:07 PM  

Romney may be tied to the Fed and be unable to stand on the brakes hard enough to stop the runaway. Right now we need someone to grab the steering wheel and turn it to the right a bit.

No, we don't. It not only won't do any good, but will erroneously cause many to believe that nothing need be done because the rescue has already been accomplished. I'd sooner vote for Obama than Romney, not that I ever would.

Blogger ajw308 July 11, 2012 1:32 PM  

especially since he is throwing a lot of his hard-won credibility out the window.
WND lost credibility with me with all it's Y2K claims. It may be a venue for some conservative writers, but that's about all I see it as.

Anonymous WinstonWebb July 11, 2012 1:45 PM  

I'm voting for Obama.
'Cause if we're gonna get leftist, statist tyranny, let's get it good & hard!

Blogger Doom July 11, 2012 1:50 PM  

No, Bush the last was the last. As I told some college punk (who almost thought about throwing down with me until I laughed at him for it), I voted for the socialist to keep the communist out. And, as I said, that was the last time. No vote for Romney(care). No votes for blatant socialist corporatists. If Obama actually survives somehow, all the better. When the too big to fail, fail, we can begin rebuilding. Romney, at best, would keep up the charade, increasing the damage. At least the incompetent Zero would dash over the line (cliff) and get the thing over.

Well, yeah... that is how I see it. Too bad about Joe.

Blogger RobertT July 11, 2012 1:53 PM  

I think the concept you may be missing is a vote for a third party candidate has the impact of voting for Obama. Let's face it only a Republican or a Democrat will win the election. So withholding a vote from the Republican has the same effect as a vote for Obama. This may be before your time, but between Ross Perot and Bush, there were enough votes to defeat Clinton. Had all of the Perot voters voted for Bush, Clinton would not have been elected. Yes I know all the arguments. But never-the-less.

I will never forget a fourth of July parade when I ran for Congress. I was walking near my float shaking hands and handing out something or other when a guy refused my hand and told me he was a Christian in a confrontational kind of way. I responded that I was also a Christian. Then he said something that startled me. He said, "I don't dirty my hands with worldly affairs like politics." But he apparently had no problem dirtying his hands with worldly affairs like parades. He used a technicality to justify his actions in one scenario and ignored it in another.

Your attitude is not the same, but to me it is oddly familiar. Yes, you are right, a vote for a third party candidate is technically not a vote for Obama. But to me it's oddly familiar.

Blogger Crude July 11, 2012 1:59 PM  

I think the concept you may be missing is a vote for a third party candidate has the impact of voting for Obama.

I think voting for a third party would make plenty of sense, if you could reasonably expect you were taking a step towards building a party that could, within a fair amount of time, have an impact on US politics. Really, if I thought there was a third party out there that had even that much of a chance, I'd go for it (assuming they aligned enough enough of the ideals I hold.)

Blogger IM2L844 July 11, 2012 2:03 PM  

Doesn't anyone ever learn from the past? Can't anyone see how the game is played?

Nobody wants to because the truth ultimately leads to the inevitable fact that a horrifyingly nefarious bogeyman really exists in those shadows, is working every angle and is out to get you. A "rational grownup" would never admit that...even to themselves. It's just too fantastically preposterous to be true.

Anonymous Clay July 11, 2012 2:10 PM  

Vox sez:

" A vote for Obama is a vote for Obama. Not voting for Obama cannot, in any sense, be considered a vote for Obama."

I suppose I'm one of the astonished stoopids.

Let's say I live in a town with 31 eligible voters. Some guy, who I KNOW I hate is running for dog-catcher. I have four (friendly, looking for a nice person with a treat),mutts who like to roam sometimes. I know 14 people in town who will vote for the fat bastard. I know 15 people in town who hate his guts. He gets to vote for himself, of course.

Should I not vote?

Hypothetically, you understand. Or, am I talking grapes, and ya'll are talking grapefruits?

Anonymous Tom B July 11, 2012 2:30 PM  

I am 35 writes:

What if everyone who won't vote for Mitt Obama or Barrack Romney writes in the name of the person they trust most for president. Would be nice to send a 35 million neither of you ass clowns vote.

Besides at least I'll receive 1 vote for the highest office in the land.

I recieved 5 votes for Congress against Lindsay Graham (and still don't know who it was who voted for me - wasn't me) - its not that big an honor. Trust me.

Anonymous Tom B July 11, 2012 2:36 PM  

Vox writes:

Romney may be tied to the Fed and be unable to stand on the brakes hard enough to stop the runaway. Right now we need someone to grab the steering wheel and turn it to the right a bit.

No, we don't. It not only won't do any good, but will erroneously cause many to believe that nothing need be done because the rescue has already been accomplished. I'd sooner vote for Obama than Romney, not that I ever would.



Making sure the correct side gets the blame for the inevitable makes more sense than any lurch-to-the-Right-to-lessen-the-damage scenario, I suppose.

Anonymous Kickass July 11, 2012 2:38 PM  

Hmm, do you think waterboarding would do it then?

Blogger Joshua_D July 11, 2012 2:44 PM  

Tom B July 11, 2012 2:36 PM

Making sure the correct side gets the blame for the inevitable makes more sense than any lurch-to-the-Right-to-lessen-the-damage scenario, I suppose.


By correct side, you Democrats and Republicans, right? Because both are to blame.

Anonymous Kickass July 11, 2012 2:45 PM  

I gotta say they really outdid themselves then. Mine is quiet and has put on just beautiful light shows. I wave, I think it likes me.

Blogger Unknown July 11, 2012 2:46 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Joshua_D July 11, 2012 2:47 PM  

Clay July 11, 2012 2:10 PM
Vox sez:

I suppose I'm one of the astonished stoopids.

...

Should I not vote?

Hypothetically, you understand. Or, am I talking grapes, and ya'll are talking grapefruits?


Why is this so hard to understand?

Candidate A is going to rape your wife. Candidate B is going to rape your wife, but at least he'll wear a condom.

Which should you vote for?

Blogger comreich July 11, 2012 2:48 PM  

Clay, grapes versus grapefruits.

In your case, you are much closer (at?) to true democracy. Every vote counts because 1 vote is ~3% (1/31) of total. So your vote actually swings the election.

In (theoretically) voting for the president, your vote is 1 in 100 million (let's say for point of argument). That's significantly less than 1% of the total vote and so your non-vote has no statistical impact on the actual outcome. You'd have to have a block of 1 million non-voters to begin to make a difference.

Granted, the fact that you vote for electoral college members changes the numbers a bit, but even then the percentages are still too small to make a difference.

If the difference between candidates came down to a handful of votes, I have no idea what the settlement mechanism would be.

Here in Canuckistan the situation is a little different because of the multiple parties and the fact that Premiers and Prime Ministers are the party leaders but still voted in as sitting legislative members. Nonetheless, in a riding of 100000, the non-votes by my wife and myself are non-events.

Anonymous Kickass July 11, 2012 2:49 PM  

Sorry, I am clicking on "reply" and my responses are right under the poster I am talking to when I view it. Be ready with binoculers next time and get us a pic if possible. It is like playing punchbuggy.

Anonymous Curlytop July 11, 2012 4:25 PM  

Joshua_D suggests: "Why is this so hard to understand?

Candidate A is going to rape your wife. Candidate B is going to rape your wife, but at least he'll wear a leaky condom.

Which should you vote for?'

Great analogy, but I made a minor adjustment for ya, brother. :-)

Blogger Desert Cat July 11, 2012 4:44 PM  

Kickass July 11, 2012 2:49 PM
Be ready with binoculers next time and get us a pic if possible. It is like playing punchbuggy.


It was months ago and at night I first noticed the pair. Of course at night I could only see the lights and hear the engines. This last weekend it was daylight so I could see clearly it was a single engine prop plane and a small jet propelled plane approximately predator size & shape. If I keep my camera in my pocket I suppose there's a slim chance I'll catch them again. It's not like I see them every weekend.

Anonymous Clay July 11, 2012 5:02 PM  

Oh, OK. DON'T vote. In 2008, those freaky little whites girls with all the OBAMA (We luvs) him signs outside the polling station, during SCHOOL TIME, has GOT to be good for us...(they weren't even old enough to vote, themselves....and this is in MISSISSIPPI!) If I had seen my daughter in that gaggle, I would have whooped her ass.....(but, she's older than that, and intelligent)

Ah, choose your poison. Republican, Democrat, "Third Party", or Denial Protestant. (that has nothing to do with religion).


(YOU GET'M SAND KITTY:)

Anonymous WinstonWebb July 11, 2012 5:21 PM  

Candidate A is going to rape your wife. Candidate B is going to rape your wife, but at least he'll wear a condom.

Which should you vote for?


Clearly you should vote for Candidate B. Because Candidate B says he'll force all voters for Candidate A to pay for the necessary abortion.

Anonymous WinstonWebb July 11, 2012 5:23 PM  

Dammit.

Switch "Candidate A" & "Candidate B".

Y'know what? Never mind. That attempt at humor sucked anyway...

Blogger tz July 11, 2012 5:25 PM  

You should get his 2005 Bush buyer's remorse column and do a 'sed -e "s/Bush/Obama/g"'.

And where were all the WNDers who say they believe in the constitution during the primaries. Oh yes, telling people there is no way they should support the candidate who doesn't think we are a colony of Israel.

But the MittChief could be worse - it could be Santorum or Gingrich.

Here is a suggestion - Forget the presidency and insure the Senate is full of people who won't let activists onto the court, who won't support bailouts, etc. A filibuster proof majority of liberty candidates in the senate and a house that will not spend one dollar on anything unconstitutional including standing armies - when there is no declaration of war.

Anonymous Clay July 11, 2012 6:20 PM  

Damn, tz....you ran across some of the ole cow pattie 'shrooms! And you must have picked the right ones!

I want some!

tz...tz...are you still with us?

Anonymous Kickass July 11, 2012 7:07 PM  

Well shoot, you must be only slightly interesting.
I never hear mine coming, but we see it like clockwork at least twice a week. You know, the suspense is getting to me. I am flagging them down tonight. Check in tomorrow and see if I make it back. Dont worry, Im Supah fly!

Anonymous Kickass July 11, 2012 7:10 PM  

Is it almost creepier that the rapist is prepared with a condom?

Anonymous Boetain July 11, 2012 7:54 PM  

Vox sure does have a way of framing an argument to make the other guy (or gal in this case) look stupid. Oftentimes, such as in this case, he uses petty literal definition games.

Anyway, if the Vikings were in first place, then a loss for the second place team would be a "win" for the Vikings (not a literal win, but we would all know what was meant by the word "win"). That is the manner of speaking, or writing, that is of course being used by the Pitt lady.

If first place beats second place then it gains a "full game" lead. If first place beats some other team, or second place loses to some other team then it is a half game pickup in either case. Same thing with these votes. Of course, Vox knows this and is just having fun by using only the literal meaning of the word "vote" and not the figure-of-speech meaning. Maybe she should've used the term "half-vote" for Obama, or "gain", or "positive" for the pedantic bloggers out there...

Anonymous Mark Twain July 11, 2012 8:04 PM  

I can see the logic, of not allowing an incumbent to get into overdrive, rather have someone beginning in first gear, and things might slow down a bit.

Then, the real question becomes, "Which is easier to impeach:

A) A Black Muslim
B) A White Mormom

Guess it depends on the make up of 113th Congress. Then again, we have a Jesuit trained Chief Justice of SCOTUS. An apparent expert in casuistry.

I say we are doomed, whichever way one tries to slice it...

As for me, I will not participate in the collusion to my own suckering. This collusion of a "wonderfully crafted pretense" we call -- democracy...

Anonymous Suomynona July 11, 2012 8:28 PM  

Conservatives are gushing about today's House vote to repeal Obamacare. It's beyond obvious that this timely vote was simply a toothless gesture intended as damage control for Roberts' betrayal. Nothing will come of it. It is a show put for the benefit of the hoi poloi so they will continue to believe they have a choice in this matter, or any matter.

Blogger Desert Cat July 11, 2012 9:25 PM  

Kickass July 11, 2012 7:07 PM
Well shoot, you must be only slightly interesting.


I would certainly hope I am less interesting to them than Farah, although the mere fact of being Ilk has to have me on their lists...

Anonymous The other skeptic July 11, 2012 10:54 PM  

Meanwhile, some finally admit that we are in recession

Anonymous paradox July 11, 2012 11:15 PM  

Farah isn't driven by principle. Farah is demonically, Jack Van Imp* possessed by the wacky rapture cult and worship-a-Talmudist-theology. The only principles that do matter to Farah... will the candidate make the US financially subsidize and militarily defend Israel.




* not 'Impe' but 'Imp' as in little devil or demon.

Anonymous Daniel July 11, 2012 11:54 PM  

I don't even know how to simulate this level of stupidity. By this logic, wouldn't a vote for Obama actually be a vote against Obama if he ends up losing? After all, you didn't throw the vote toward a theoretical close running third party candidate to end up promoting a three-way tie, thereby leaving more room for corruption and Obama being elected by fiat, right?

Man, Farah. That's not even pretzel logic. At least a pretzel has a little salt to it.

Anonymous Clay July 12, 2012 12:21 AM  

Although WND prolly brings the Day family a little change, I suspect VD will continue to post columns there, because he doesn't hold Farah's opinion as a negative.
Just a bad choice.

Or else...this was a divorce.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza July 12, 2012 1:58 AM  

Sad being that F is a well meaning boomer committing the same visible errors typical of his generation.

Has anyone else reached their saturation point with these pointless American elections?

We'll, perhaps JF will change.

Ah, yes 33 failed attempted of offing the ACA law is really a dog and pony show for the prole Americano who still think in terms of the false-left paradigm game. The banks and ins co. wrote and wanted this bill, not for health or care for another wicked transfer of wealth to international banks.

I think its time to review how much $$ GS and other accomplices gave to both worthless sides.

Anonymous Grinder July 12, 2012 3:18 AM  

Your best choice for President is clear to me as a Canadian nationalist.
Ralph Nader

Anonymous VD July 12, 2012 3:43 AM  

I think the concept you may be missing is a vote for a third party candidate has the impact of voting for Obama. Let's face it only a Republican or a Democrat will win the election. So withholding a vote from the Republican has the same effect as a vote for Obama. This may be before your time, but between Ross Perot and Bush, there were enough votes to defeat Clinton. Had all of the Perot voters voted for Bush, Clinton would not have been elected. Yes I know all the arguments. But never-the-less.

No, it does not. You are simply wrong and innumerate. No matter how many times you make the claim, one plus zero will never equal two.

Anonymous James Dixon July 12, 2012 7:13 AM  

> Let's face it only a Republican or a Democrat will win the election.

If a majority of the eligible voters (say, 60%, to allow for the vagaries of the Electoral College), vote for a single third party candidate, that candidate will win the election. The only reason only a republican or democrat will win is because so many people buy into the idea that only a republican or democrat can win, making it a self fulfilling prophecy.

> ...but between Ross Perot and Bush, there were enough votes to defeat Clinton.

Sure. But Clinton, for all his faults, was a better President than Bush.

Anonymous DonReynolds July 12, 2012 9:59 AM  

Once again, the Republipuke that desperately needed the votes of the conservative base of his party in order to secure the nomination wants to keep those votes in the general election, while he spits in their faces. Once again we get a Ripon Society, Rockefeller Liberal, Republican for the candidate and the great minds are now trying to figure out how to get conservatives to vote for the bastard. We saw this up close in 2008 when the candidate was Juan McCain, now the party wants to run yet another Liberal RINO and STILL expects to get out the conservative vote with the frightening aspect of another four years of O'Bama and his louts.

Sorry, I ain't buying. I am not going to ever vote for the lesser of two evils again. I am not going to vote for another candidate that panders and lies to the ethnics of the electorate, while they demonstrate their insincerity by winking at me (and all the other conservatives) while saying..."but you know what I REALLY mean" or "I hafta do this to win the election, but it is nonsense".

Neither O'Bama or Romney have said one word about how they intend to deal with the coming crisis or what steps they will take to try to avoid it. Best I can tell, the best option for conservatives (if they have the stomach to vote at all) would be to vote for O'Bama (and a Republican Congress). Only in this way, can we be certain that the Congress will not bow and scrape to every whim of the President. A Republican Congress would oppose O'Bama every step of the way for the next four years....heck, they may even rise up on their hind legs and do their duty to the American people. Imagine that!

If we as a nation are not going to directly deal with the many problems that we have, it seems those problems need to stink more before they get the needed attention. That is why I keep saying that WORSE IS BETTER. The worse things get, the closer we will be to finding the loins to take the most obvious solution. There simply is no peaceful means to save this country. Voting is no longer the solution.

Anonymous Jimmy July 12, 2012 10:37 AM  

"I am not going to ever vote for the lesser of two evils again."

How about voting defensively instead?

I believe in voting out incumbents. Vote for party changing. Do this every election cycle so the politicians will be more responsive to the voters, if not to their principles.

Anonymous Anonymous July 12, 2012 10:41 AM  

Vox - Does the friendship between Ron Paul and Romney count for anything? Or the fact that Ron pilloried Newt and Santorum repeatedly in the campaign, but not Romney?

Romney is the most economically conservative and socially conservative prez candidate since Reagan. He might end up being pretty good at the job, and at least better than the last 4 incompetents who occupied the Oval Office. Just saying.

Blogger Desert Cat July 12, 2012 11:03 AM  

What happens to our adamant denials if Romney should choose Ron or Rand Paul for VP?

Blogger Desert Cat July 12, 2012 11:07 AM  

Anonymous July 12, 2012 10:41 AM
Romney is the most economically conservative and socially conservative prez candidate since Reagan.


bullshit

Anonymous Kickass July 12, 2012 11:38 AM  

Thats the spirit!

Anonymous Kickass July 12, 2012 11:43 AM  

Ok, I made it back. They said they are aliens here on a peaceful mission to enlighten us. But I could swear one was Mexican and the other Chinese.

Blogger Markku July 12, 2012 11:47 AM  

No, it does not. You are simply wrong and innumerate. No matter how many times you make the claim, one plus zero will never equal two.

Voting is about relative, not absolute numbers. So, no vote has the same effect as half a vote for the other guy IF you would have voted for one or the other, and chose not to.

Town of 20, 10 voters for candidate A and 10 for candidate B. But here comes a shady dude and persuades TWO candidate B voters to stay home. Now, it's 10 to 8, or 44.44% against 66.66%. But another dude persuades ONE voter for candidate A to defect. Now it's 9 to 9, or 50% to 50% again.

However, this works only under the assumption that you were a potential candidate A or B voter to begin with. So, the argument is internally coherent if you see libertarians as Republicans that have been tricked by some nefarious, Democrat-aligned shady group. But without that assumption it doesn't work. You simply were not a supporter of either at any point.

Blogger Markku July 12, 2012 11:56 AM  

Eh, 44.44% against 55.56%, obviously.

Blogger Joshua_D July 12, 2012 11:59 AM  

Jimmy July 12, 2012 10:37 AM
"I am not going to ever vote for the lesser of two evils again."

How about voting defensively instead?

I believe in voting out incumbents. Vote for party changing. Do this every election cycle so the politicians will be more responsive to the voters, if not to their principles.


Janie, do you even know how our political system works?

Anonymous Jimmy July 12, 2012 12:05 PM  

Voting presumes low turnout. I heard anything from 25% to 50% turnout. The winner, in most cases, convinces more to show up, while the loser discourages people from showing up.

Under this framing, a non-vote for Mitt Romney does not mean Obama gets the vote, but it does give Obama some breathing room, which may or may not matter. It matters more if the voting is close and there is voter fraud.

Anonymous Jimmy July 12, 2012 12:08 PM  

@Joshua_D

I'm not Janie. Why don't you tell me how the political system works?

Anonymous DonReynolds July 12, 2012 1:00 PM  

We all know the role of third candidates in past elections. Ross Peroit stole enough popular votes from Bush to elect Clinton. Nader stole enough popular votes from Gore to elect Bush Jr. This is nothing new. Shucks, Teddy Roosevelt stole enough popular votes from Taft to elect Wilson. (In that 1912 election, the third party candidate received 88 electoral votes and the Republican only 8 electoral votes.) Fortunately or unfortunately, the third party candidate (if there is one) will most likely destroy the major candidate closest to his own political philosophy. A Pat Buchanan or Rick Santorum in 2012 would completely destroy any possibility of Romney getting elected. Third party candidates are shills, wittingly or unwittingly, for the major candidate opposite his political philosophy, no matter whether they are another conservative or another liberal. Want to beat Obamba? Run yet another Udall, or Bayh, or Kennedy, or Clinton. The third party candidate has proven to be good at splitting the popular votes that would otherwise go to the major candidate closest to their own views.

Blogger Markku July 12, 2012 1:31 PM  

It makes total sense for Republicans to run the most liberal candidate they can find. The conservative base can be counted on voting him anyway out of fear of Democrats, and the more liberal the candidate is, the more fence-sitters he can hope to attract. This can only be reversed when they can no longer count on the real conservatives to vote them no matter the candidate.

So, a vote for a liberal Republican candidate is a vote for liberalism.

Anonymous Daniel July 12, 2012 1:51 PM  

Romneyncing the Stoned - I've seen this movie. The helpless one makes off with the cash at the end.

Anonymous Anonymous July 12, 2012 6:43 PM  

"The principle is religious institutions are not forced to participate. They can opt out."

My understanding is that Romney was responsible for forcing Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts to dispense Plan B to which they object. He will do whatever his donors/handlers tell him to do.

Faustina

Anonymous James Dixon July 12, 2012 9:15 PM  

> Ross Peroit stole enough popular votes from Bush to elect Clinton. Nader stole enough popular votes from Gore to elect Bush Jr.

Neither Ross Perot nor Ralph Nader stole any votes. People voted for them voluntarily. Has it ever occurred to you that Bush and Gore were lousy candidates, who deserved to lose?

Anonymous III July 13, 2012 12:04 AM  

Of which Farah also tells us of his communist roots... so he is now going to vote for the lesser of two communists.

Anonymous DonReynolds July 13, 2012 9:46 AM  

@Markku..."It makes total sense for Republicans to run the most liberal candidate they can find. The conservative base can be counted on voting him anyway out of fear of Democrats, and the more liberal the candidate is, the more fence-sitters he can hope to attract. This can only be reversed when they can no longer count on the real conservatives to vote them no matter the candidate.

"So, a vote for a liberal Republican candidate is a vote for liberalism."

Very good, Markku. This is an excellent summary. Given that the two major parties have roughly equal vote strength, victory at the polls is decided in this country by people who are independent (neither Republican or Democrat). The candidate that can win the most independent voters will carry the election. For Republicans, this means sounding more liberal than the base of their party. For Democrats, this means sounding more conservative than the base of their party. In the end, both candidates dismay their own party faithful by being so identical on many issues.

The ruling elite of this country does not give a crap which candidate wins....they own them both....so it is a matter of indifference, either way.

Blogger Markku July 13, 2012 1:12 PM  

And how did it come to this situation, where the true conservatives don't have any other practical options (that is, options that have reasonable chance of winning in the current election cycle) than to vote Republican? Because everybody always voted Republican. So, what's everybody's solution then, including Farah's? That everybody vote Republican, of course. Duh.

Anonymous E. PERLINE July 14, 2012 1:01 PM  

I guess you read that workers must work at least 6 months per year to pay for USA government taxes. That discrepancy alone makes most working people and their masters slaves of the government.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts