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

Tuesday, August 07, 2012

Mailvox: why Romney is better

MM explains why Romney would be preferable as president to Obama:
Romney must have some principals because despite theological differences Mormons tend to be law abiding and dedicated to their theology. Whereas Obama is a Muslim, Black Supremacy, Progressive. Liberal Buffoon. Romney has had success with Capitalism, Obama has never had a success with anything except politics. And unfortunately we have to defeat Obama so a "fifteenth choice" candidate like Romney is the only option. You have the right to prognosticate what evils Romney may bring into office with him. No doubt being human he will screw a few things up. Yet he will:

Not apologize to the haters of America that we deserve their hatred

Not admire the most virulent of Jihadists while angering our most important allies

Not block our chances of energy independence as drastically

Not allow amnesty for voter menacing or voter fraud

This is just a short list of some of the most obvious ways Romney will be so much less harmful than Obama.
Yes, because it is all the apologizing that is the real crisis facing America today. This isn't damning with faint praise, this is underlining my case against Romney by defending with the very faintest of attempted justifications. As I said, if you're still buying the "we must defeat Evil X with Evil Y" after the debacle of the George W. Bush years, you're not merely wrong, you're observably stupid.

The final survey:

Romney: 174 comments, 125 Likes
Obama: 106 comments, 82 Likes
Keen: 10 comments, 11 Likes

Conclusion: WND readers vastly prefer reading about politics to economics. Which is probably true of most readers on the nominal right side of the political spectrum, as their propensity for producing endless permutations of Team Red good! Team Blue bad! explains why Coulter, Breitbart, Me So Michelle, and the Mommyblogger are so popular.

Guess the title of next week's column....

Labels: ,

104 Comments:

Anonymous re allow anonymous comments August 07, 2012 6:46 AM  

"observably stupid" is a pretty poor phrase

romney is better than obama, period, full stop.

romney is a spineless worm beholden to hostile interests, but he is not valarie jarrett

Anonymous Anonymous August 07, 2012 6:54 AM  

You can't put Coulter next to Malkin or the Mommy bloggers. Yes, she's a Republican and therefore supports foreign invasions and drug criminalization and that nonsense, but she's the most shrewd and cunning political personality out there. She's leagues above the lightweights you just mentioned.

Blogger Peter Garstig August 07, 2012 6:54 AM  

Next weeks column: "Why Ron Paul sucks"

Blogger Peter Garstig August 07, 2012 6:55 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Shimshon August 07, 2012 6:55 AM  

Vox, you should twirling your virtual moustache just about now, while clubbing little kittens skipping down the road. Or something like that. This experiment is gold. Pure gold.

Blogger Eric Mueller August 07, 2012 7:04 AM  

I liked your Keen column. I've been avoiding Facebook lately. Too much "Obama will save us" and disagreement is hate crap. Count one more like and comment on that one.

I wouldn't say Romney has had success with capitalism. What has he actually produced besides money in the pockets of his cronies? Jon Stewart was right when he said Bain's corporate logo should be a giant fist squeezing a globe. About all Romney did was buy up a company, rape it for anything of value, and sell off what was left before it collapsed, making it somebody else's problem. He made a lot of money for himself and his partners, but probably ruined more jobs than Obamessiah.

I'm not voting for either. I'm going the Brewster's Millions route: vote for None Of The Above.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus August 07, 2012 7:06 AM  

Someone sounds a little put out.

Anonymous Faust August 07, 2012 7:13 AM  

"Not block our chances of energy independence as drastically"

THAT'S his campaign slogan?
He'll still screw over the country, just not as hard?

For some reason when I saw "Keen", instead of the economist I thought of Commander Keen, the old fictional hero from a series of ID software games. And I said to myself, "It's an odd choice, but would he really be worse than Romney?"

The nation is doomed.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler August 07, 2012 7:21 AM  

Romney is bad because he is a Diversity Queen. Mormons are one of the most PeeCee churches. Romney is NOT going to defend the WASP culture in America. Other than the financial crisis we are facing now, we have a demographic problem.

Demography of America is THE problem. Romney ain't going to fix it.

Second in this Bro Nathaniel video, Israel is the real World Power, he lays out that the Constitution is being ignored in that both Hussein and Willard are favoring one religion over another, i.e. Israel. America is supposedly the World Power but both American leaders feel the need to give obescence to Zionism. As Br. Nathaniel points out Washington is Zionist controlled territory.

Romney is NOT going to stand up to the Zionists, Israel, or the Jewish lobby in America. His foreign policy advisor is a Jew. Romney has already declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel and gave the go ahead for them to commit a first strike on Iran. Romney is causing a major war before he ever assumes the Cherry Blossom Throne.

There is no reason to vote for Romney, except on economic policy. But the greater problem is demography and Romney will NOT do anything about it.

Anonymous MadPiper August 07, 2012 7:26 AM  

Next column title:

If voting changed anything, it would be illegal.

Anonymous Phil G August 07, 2012 7:27 AM  

Well it isn't a contest between Obama, Romney and some other VIABLE better candidate to be named later, it is a contest between Obama and Romney. Given all of Romney's shortcomings as a paleocon/traditionalist conservative, I'll vote for Romney in a heartbeat and then turn my attention to better candidates for congress and the next presidential election. Romney may do some good and will definitely do far less harm then the Obambler.

Politics is about taking the best available not about the perfect.

Anonymous Josh August 07, 2012 7:49 AM  

Phil, why are you voting for romney?

Anonymous Invid August 07, 2012 7:53 AM  

Phil G, you're the reason everything is such a mess.

Blogger Nate August 07, 2012 7:55 AM  

Phil... How much worse would the nation be if it had elected Al Gore instead of Dubya?

Anonymous Kyle In Japan August 07, 2012 8:00 AM  

Hate to say it Vox but out of everything you write about on this blog, I find economics and sports the least interesting.

That's not to say that I don't think economics is important (it certainly is, and I agree with most of your conclusions.) But most people don't realize that it's the root cause of the recession and all the different schools of thought, terms and jargon are intimidating to the average person skimming over op-ed columns while sipping coffee with breakfast.

Maybe most people are idiots, but in this case it's more likely that most people don't realize the importance/relevancy of economics on current events.

Anonymous JartStar August 07, 2012 8:14 AM  

Vox,

If any of the nominated candidates from either of the two parties, from the last 100 years were running today, would you vote for any of them and why?

Blogger Tank August 07, 2012 8:15 AM  

Would Romney be a better President than Zero? Probably (possibly not - he's more likely to engage in foreign "adventures" and just as likely to PC his way to numerous disasters). But he's the lesser of two very bad choices.

Don't vote, or register a protest type of vote. I'm still kicking myself for voting for Bush II (the first time only - at least I learned).

Re: WND. I think you could gain wider readership and approval (if that's what you wanted) by assuming your readers know less about economics, ie. dumb down the economic columns to intersect with WND readers' knowledge.

Anonymous VryeDenker August 07, 2012 8:15 AM  

So, what exactly is the difference between politics and macro-economics? Just kidding of course, but one can't discuss the one without invariably ending up discussing the other.

Blogger Gavin Brittain August 07, 2012 8:21 AM  

Guess the title of next week's column....

"American's are effin' stupid and deserve what's coming to 'em"

Blogger Tank August 07, 2012 8:22 AM  

A total guess:

WND readers' IQ is at least 25 points lower than Ilk IQ.

One explanation for the WND experiment results.

Blogger tz August 07, 2012 8:28 AM  

Orrin Hatch miht be instructive. He cancelled baby parts for sale hearings because big pharma in Utah didn't want them. Mitt will be doing God's work taking revenge for what the feds did to the Mormons over the years.

And I'm serious - someone thinking he is on a holy mission to do good will ignore any evil results, break any rule, and use any method to get there.

As to economics, Vox, get real. Not appreciating an article comparing the contrapunctal techniques of Palestrina and Bach doesn't make one a music hater. And a car buff might not appreciate the chemistry of the fluids underhood. Even I haven't read Keen (on my get to stack).

The effects of the collapse of the euro here would get a better response. Same with bonds v. Equities v. Gold.

Anonymous JartStar August 07, 2012 8:30 AM  

I'd say that economics aren't as popular because it's complicated, and that your conclusions are universally depressing. How many more columns do we need on, "Somewhere in the next 1-30 years you will be cooking your pets on a wood fire to feed your kids, idiots."

If you were writing weekly economic columns starting the day after the end of Bretton Woods could you in good conscience write one positive column about America's economic future over the course of 40 years?

Blogger Joshua_D August 07, 2012 8:31 AM  

Peter Garstig August 07, 2012 6:54 AM

Next weeks column: "Why Ron Paul sucks"


That made me laugh.

Blogger Shimshon August 07, 2012 8:41 AM  

Vox, is Farah in on it?

Anonymous DT August 07, 2012 8:42 AM  

Phil... How much worse would the nation be if it had elected Al Gore instead of Dubya?

We can only speculate because Gore was never a president, only a relatively powerless VP. Both Bush Jr. and Obama have track records as presidents and are therefore more easily compared. As bad as Dubya was, I believe less damage was done to the nation under Bush than under Obama.

Despite Vox's arguments to the contrary, I don't believe a Romney term will be as damaging as another Obama term. I may be wrong, or it may not matter in the long run. But strategically you have to make the decision that you think will result in the least amount of damage. If you're retreating from battle and retreat A will cost you half of your troops, while retreat B will only cost one third...and you have no other options...you choose B. You minimize damage, salvage what you can, and hope to fight another day.

If you've truly given up hope and expect the U.S. to crash and burn regardless of what any of us do now, then I can see just not voting. Admittedly I come closer and closer to that position every day.

Anonymous DT August 07, 2012 8:43 AM  

"Somewhere in the next 1-30 years you will be cooking your pets on a wood fire to feed your kids, idiots."

Thanks. I needed that laugh.

Blogger Ask August 07, 2012 8:44 AM  

"WND readers are worst"

Anonymous Roundtine August 07, 2012 9:01 AM  

If any of the nominated candidates from either of the two parties, from the last 100 years were running today, would you vote for any of them and why?

Harding, Coolidge, Goldwater, McGovern.

Blogger Joe A. August 07, 2012 9:06 AM  

Me So Michelle. LOL. Life is good when you are easily humored like me.

Anonymous VD August 07, 2012 9:12 AM  

Vox, is Farah in on it?

No.

If you were writing weekly economic columns starting the day after the end of Bretton Woods could you in good conscience write one positive column about America's economic future over the course of 40 years?

There was a time around 1989-1990 when things looked promising after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Blogger Nate August 07, 2012 9:12 AM  

"We can only speculate because Gore was never a president, only a relatively powerless VP. Both Bush Jr. and Obama have track records as presidents and are therefore more easily compared."

Brilliant. Now speculate. If Gore had won... how do you think the US would be different right now?

Would the crash of 08 still happened?

Would we have invaded Afghanistan? Iraq?

Would Obama... be president right now?

Blogger IM2L844 August 07, 2012 9:19 AM  

Phil, do you ever stop and wonder WHY things are the way they always are election cycle after election cycle? Your herd/pack instinct is being exploited with the problem/reaction/solution paradigm where the only available solutions have been predetermined to produce completely predictable outcomes that are only superficially different. Yes, humans are natural herd/pack animals.

Anonymous rycamor August 07, 2012 9:21 AM  

Next week's title has to be another set-up: "America--Libertarians Should Love it or just Shut Up and Leave."

Anonymous Orion August 07, 2012 9:21 AM  

McGovern? The guy that wanted to make everything fair and equal because he knew better than the marketplace. Then went on to open a B&B or something that flopped when he discovered he had no clue what small business owners are up against.

Next column title:
"Rise of the selkies: or how I learned to love wereseals and ignore impending economic collapse"

Blogger Nate August 07, 2012 9:23 AM  

"There was a time around 1989-1990 when things looked promising after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the breakup of the Soviet Union."

Its not really a fair question considering things were so good in the 50s. Its been on long decent sense then into debt debt and more debt. Watching the manufacturing bail out...

This is not about pessimism. this is about an epic collapse from an enormous super-power to a homeless crack addict.

Anonymous Irma La Douche August 07, 2012 9:28 AM  

Tar and feathers gets my vote.

Anonymous III August 07, 2012 9:29 AM  

I believe less damage was done to the nation under Bush than under Obama.

Yes. It is hard for people to see that with every president, we lose more and more liberty, and the noose around our necks become tighter.

Blogger Nate August 07, 2012 9:30 AM  

"As bad as Dubya was, I believe less damage was done to the nation under Bush than under Obama."

Then you're a moron.

Anonymous Fat Al Roker August 07, 2012 9:30 AM  

I'll only vote for Romney if he makes Glenn Beck his Vice President.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 August 07, 2012 9:36 AM  

You can't put Coulter next to Malkin or the Mommy bloggers. Yes, she's a Republican and therefore supports foreign invasions and drug criminalization and that nonsense, but she's the most shrewd and cunning political personality out there. She's leagues above the lightweights you just mentioned.

Whoever you are, you're a joke. Miss Coulter supported Mitt Romney all this time, claiming he is conservative, while ignoring his pro-choice statements, his taking credit for Obamacare, and so many other things that don't make him conservative.

In other words, she's a stupid fangirl who probably would bear his child, given the opportunity.

Anonymous dB August 07, 2012 9:37 AM  

"Romney may do some good and will definitely do far less harm then the Obambler."

how does this one play out? you do realize that romney will do the will of the bankstas because there will be mandatory fellatio lessons on day one. you have 16 trillion in debt that nobody wants to touch. just keep piling it on. you have unions that will fight tooth and nail to keep something that can no longer be afforded. romney has made no indications that he will prosecute the fraud in the financial system. and you think romney will be better?

and my guess is that gore would have been no better. we probably would not have gone into iraq but the financial fraud would have continued.

Anonymous JartStar August 07, 2012 9:49 AM  

There was a time around 1989-1990 when things looked promising after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the breakup of the Soviet Union.

So at least from Bretton Woods ending, and maybe before, we have been on a very slow train wreck outside of one anomaly that had nothing to do with our economic policy.

You probably don’t care enough to answer my question about the candidates, but I’d be surprised if there was even one.

So for the last 100 years the American people have nominated evil candidates and at least for the last 40 it has been on an economic slow boat to hell.

This makes writing your political columns and economic columns titles very easy.

1. Candidate X is evil, here’s why
2. The economy is going to crash (eventually), here’s why

Blogger Nate August 07, 2012 9:52 AM  

For those keeping score:

Dubya:
Patriot Act.

2 foreign wars.

Tarp.

Killed Posse Comitatus.

Federalized education.

Made student loans exempt from bankruptcy.

Created an enormous new healthcare entitlement

Appointed the justice that wrote the decision that declared Obamacare constitutional.

Gitmo

Now what has obama done exactly?

Anonymous DT August 07, 2012 9:56 AM  

"As bad as Dubya was, I believe less damage was done to the nation under Bush than under Obama."

Then you're a moron.


Both the national debt and America's unfunded liabilities have gone up more under Obama in one term then they did under Bush in two.

While Bush's wars were larger, we're engaged in more conflicts under Obama then we were under Bush.

Pretty much everything Bush started that led to the erosion of individual rights, Obama has accelerated.

While Bush did nothing to improve our resistance to mass illegal immigration, Obama is dismantling what meager resistance we have as we speak. And he has done his level best to interfere with any and all state efforts to resist.

Bush may have supported the Medicare drug act, but that pales in comparison to the labyrinth that is ObamaCare.

Am I missing something? Is there some measure by which Bush just blew Obama out of the water in terms of damage to the country?

Anonymous Newt Gingrich August 07, 2012 9:59 AM  

You people are clueless about the power of American exceptionalism. We get a free pass from God for being Israel's best friend, and putting "in God we trust" on our fiat money.

Blogger Nate August 07, 2012 9:59 AM  

" Is there some measure by which Bush just blew Obama out of the water in terms of damage to the country?"

Yes.

See the list above.

Anonymous JartStar August 07, 2012 10:05 AM  

The inability of the American people not to choose evil in 100 years and 50 candidates is an excellent argument against self-representation. In a monarchy the odds are good that the country would have at least one good king in 100 years and even if it didn’t at least the populace didn’t have much a choice in the matter.

Anonymous SWW August 07, 2012 10:09 AM  

Politics is about taking the best available not about the perfect.
More accurately, voting is reduced to choosing the candidate that will screw you over the least. But again, when the difference between choices becomes minuscule, the choice is meaningless...

Anonymous DT August 07, 2012 10:12 AM  

For those keeping score:

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I think Bush was a good president. I do not. He was a disaster. But I do not agree with the strategy of folding your arms when presented with a greater and a lesser evil, one of which will be imposed upon you regardless of your stand to refuse to choose.

FYI, the Patriot Act is evil, but a lesser evil than Obama's administration deciding that it can assassinate Americans at will. The Medicare drug act is not as large as Obamacare. And appointing the judge who allowed Obamacare...as disappointing and damaging as that was...takes a back seat to actually creating Obamacare.

Bush was awful. Obama has been worse.

Now I am open to the argument that Romney will be even worse. I'm not convinced of that yet, but I'm open to it. I'm also open to the argument that the differences simply will not matter in the long run. But I can't see Obama winning any comparison with Bush. His trillion dollar spending spree alone is a greater risk to the nation than anything Bush did.

Blogger Dan Hewitt August 07, 2012 10:16 AM  

Who is the mommyblogger?

Anonymous Josh August 07, 2012 10:19 AM  

Nate,

Obamacare, dodd frank, soyndra, fast and furious, libya, somalia.

Yeah, bush really beats him here.

Of course, you ask a mindless israel fister like farah, and all he'll do is yell "BIRTH CERTIFICATE"

Anonymous patrick kelly August 07, 2012 10:20 AM  

re: next column title.

Blue voters dumb, Red voters dumber?

Blogger Vox August 07, 2012 10:20 AM  

I do not agree with the strategy of folding your arms when presented with a greater and a lesser evil, one of which will be imposed upon you regardless of your stand to refuse to choose.

Then you are an evil serf, fully complicit in the evil that is being done with your electoral support. You can't claim it is being imposed upon you when you yourself freely and voluntarily voted for it.

If you don't vote, you are not responsible for it. You rob them of the ability to claim democratic legitimacy. If you do vote, you are responsible because you have conveyed legitimacy upon them.

Anonymous The Gray Man August 07, 2012 10:22 AM  

I love reading the sports and the economics posts on here (especially those dealing with economic theory instead of the banking industry numbers), but I usually have little to say on those and prefer to read the comments.

Anonymous Josh August 07, 2012 10:24 AM  

If you don't vote, you are not responsible for it. You rob them of the ability to claim democratic legitimacy. If you do vote, you are responsible because you have conveyed legitimacy upon them.

But don't you know how many men died so that you would have the right to vote?

/s

Blogger Nate August 07, 2012 10:25 AM  

"FYI, the Patriot Act is evil, but a lesser evil than Obama's administration deciding that it can assassinate Americans at will. The Medicare drug act is not as large as Obamacare. And appointing the judge who allowed Obamacare...as disappointing and damaging as that was...takes a back seat to actually creating Obamacare."

Son you are blind as a bat. What about the TSA? Obama didn't create it. Bush did. Homeland Security? Bush.

Its not even close.

Obamacare is all you have... and obamacare really isn't that big a deal. Medicare and Medicaid were 100 times worse.

Anonymous Madame Chow Choplipsticks August 07, 2012 10:31 AM  

The U.S. presidency is a puppetry. In the last ~50 years, one told us so in his farewell. What kept him alive to a relatively natural demise, was probably his five stars. Another gave designs to thwart it, but earned a .45 ACP in his forehead. Then one more signaled intentions, and received a .22 long in his armpit. He was never the same man from that point on. Even a minion Illumatus, got a warning signaling that he had a boss, that gave a similar lecture to a French noble, about a century before his birth. He wasn't exactly a Tambourine Man. He was a whole lot more. And, few have a clue just how he does it...

Blogger James Dixon August 07, 2012 10:32 AM  

> Well it isn't a contest between Obama, Romney and some other VIABLE better candidate to be named later...

That's funny, I'm pretty sure there will be at least 4 candidates on the ballot I receive.

> Romney may do some good and will definitely do far less harm then the Obambler.

I wouldn't be willing to bet money on that.

> Politics is about taking the best available not about the perfect.

Which is exactly what I intend to do when I vote. Why you insist on limiting yourself to what are most likely the two worst available choices is something you'll have to figure out on your own.

Blogger James Dixon August 07, 2012 10:38 AM  

> Am I missing something? Is there some measure by which Bush just blew Obama out of the water in terms of damage to the country?

Yes. He started all the policies which Obama is continuing.

> Bush was awful. Obama has been worse.

Yes, But without Bush's precedents, Obama couldn't have been this bad.

> If you do vote, you are responsible because you have conveyed legitimacy upon them.

Unless you vote for a third party. :)

Anonymous Josh August 07, 2012 10:38 AM  

Nate is clearly a socialist who wants to set up death panels and kill everyone's grandma.

Anonymous JartStar August 07, 2012 10:46 AM  

Then you are an evil serf, fully complicit in the evil that is being done with your electoral support. You can't claim it is being imposed upon you when you yourself freely and voluntarily voted for it.

So the only course of action is never to lend support to any leader as you legitimize their future evil as you have to assume that all politicians are liars, or you are naïve and stupid.

1. All men are sinners.
2. You picked a man.
3. You legitimized his sin.

Anonymous The Gray Man August 07, 2012 11:02 AM  

If you don't vote, you are not responsible for it. You rob them of the ability to claim democratic legitimacy. If you do vote, you are responsible because you have conveyed legitimacy upon them.

That is silly thinking. I once believed that when I was buying into the anarchist tripe, but it simply isn't true. Whether I as an individual vote or not makes virtually zero difference in the results. What more "legitimacy" do they have if I vote vs if I don't?

Anarchist thought breaks apart like water on rock when it crashes into reality.

Blogger JohnG August 07, 2012 11:06 AM  

More fun I think to bash politicians. Economics kinda boils down "OMG we're doomed!" or "It works great, look at European Socialist Utopia X! (which is now going bankrupt but lefties don't bother looking into anything)

Anonymous fnn August 07, 2012 11:12 AM  

> That's funny, I'm pretty sure there will be at least 4 candidates on the ballot I receive.

Only two count.

Blogger Gerald Benard August 07, 2012 11:20 AM  

Vox,
Column headlines to run up to the election:
1. "Vote for Cthulhu, again"
2. "America Births Illegitimacy: Wasted Votes"
3. "You get what you deserve"
4. "Go to bed with a dog, wake up with fleas"
5. "There is one born every minute"
6. "Republicans are Communists"
7. "Democrats are Communists"
Write all of these at a F-K Score of 50.

Anonymous fnn August 07, 2012 11:26 AM  

Brief explanation of US voting system

> ‘… supporters of the third place parties shift their votes to one of the two leading parties, to avoid their votes being “wasted”….’

Which means, by the way, that claims that FPTP ‘at least’ elects ‘the candidate with the most positive support’ are unreliable. A plurality of votes may well include ballots from voters who preferred a “hopeless” candidate and voted tactically. And some major-party candidates may be better than others at persuading third-party supporters not to “waste their vote”. How often? No one knows.

In fact, FPTP is often defended by its supporters on precisely this basis – it makes minor-party supporters wise up and get realistic – perhaps unaware that it directly contradicts their other ground for supporting FPTP, that it elects the “most popular” candidate rather than the “least unpopular”.

In other words: It’s trite to say that FPTP often elects candidates who lack (absolute) majority support, but it’s not often realised that it may very well elect candidates who don’t even enjoy (simple) plurality support – the very thing it’s advertised for.

Anonymous JartStar August 07, 2012 11:53 AM  

Anarchist thought breaks apart like water on rock when it crashes into reality.

This is one of the reasons libertarians never gain much traction. They constantly eat their own in a desperate attempt to find the platonic ideal candidate. I’m sure many libertarians would consider Vox a heretic statist for his position on free trade and would consider a vote for Vox a vote for evil and the destruction of liberty.

I’ve found myself disassociating myself with the term more the last couple of years.

Blogger Giraffe August 07, 2012 12:06 PM  

Vote for the socialist, or else we will get a communist.

Anonymous Noah B. August 07, 2012 12:10 PM  

A few ideas for next week's column:

"Why You Shouldn't Vote In November"
"Obama Is Still Bad"
"It's Time To Embrace The Horror"

Blogger Joshua_D August 07, 2012 12:24 PM  

I think the "Why You Shouldn't Vote" theme might actually be the most useful tool to open people eyes. It would be interesting to see a comparison of the voters > population > representatives at the state and federal level in the 1800s and today.

Anyone aware of any resources on that topic?

Blogger James Dixon August 07, 2012 12:41 PM  

> Only two count.

And your point is?

I don't care how other people vote. Only how I vote. I'm not going to vote for a bad candidate just because other people do.

Anonymous DonReynolds August 07, 2012 12:43 PM  

The Republipukes used the same campaign slogan in 2008 as in 2012....

"We are not as bad as the other guys!"

I am not sure this will energize the stupid party base. Without a positive message of any kind, a good many conservatives will simply stay away from the polls on election day....as they did in 2008. If Romney expects to get elected by people who despise Obama, he is going to have to throw the conservatives some red meat, something they can believe he will actually do besides posture for the office. He does not have a problem with lying to win the nomination (he already did that), now he needs to make a few more empty promises to seal the deal. Unfortunately, Romney's reversal on some key issues during the primary fight have created some distrust among conservatives and they may not trust him again on election day. Does this mean Obamba is a better choice? Not in the least. But there is something particularly damning about your vote being taken for granted on election day. It means that the politician in question need not lift a finger or support any of your viewpoints. It means he never will. His focus will be on the moderates in the center, while he takes his base for granted.

Anonymous DonReynolds August 07, 2012 12:56 PM  

2012 is shaping up like so many other presidential elections. We all have the choice between being eaten by a lion or a tiger. We do not yet have a choice of not being eaten alive.

One candidate will put us all in chains and take all that we own. The other candidate will put us all in chains and whip us with a birch rod. The question is not which candidate will cause the least misery, or the least humiliation, or destroy the country slowly or quickly. The question has not even been asked in public yet.

Anonymous maniacprovost August 07, 2012 1:37 PM  

"The Economy is Bad"

Anonymous The Gray Man August 07, 2012 1:45 PM  

JartStar - August 07, 2012 11:53 AM
Anarchist thought breaks apart like water on rock when it crashes into reality.

This is one of the reasons libertarians never gain much traction. They constantly eat their own in a desperate attempt to find the platonic ideal candidate. I’m sure many libertarians would consider Vox a heretic statist for his position on free trade and would consider a vote for Vox a vote for evil and the destruction of liberty.

I’ve found myself disassociating myself with the term more the last couple of years.


I agree with you completely. It was the inability of libertarians to realize that A) they alienate themselves from everyone else, B) the midwit circle jerk, and C) their inability to grasp the concept and importance of nationalism, race, religion and tradition that brought me to a more conservative position.

A decade ago I was a neocon, but I was a silly teenager who was still evolving opinions. I went to a more paleoconservative view, and eventually libertarian and outright anarchist by the 2008 election time. I voted in the Republican primary for Ron Paul in 2008, but by the time the election rolled around in November, I was considering myself an anarchist and did not vote because I did not want to "give legitimacy" to the government.

It was really through 2009 that the importance of tradition, race, and religion really became apparent to me. I have read Vox on and off since 2003 or 2004, but I think it was in 2009 that I started to read him every single day and found his insights to be helpful in developing my own viewpoints on some issues.

I consider my journey into anarchism to basically be through "hell and back"--I have learned a lot and it is rather annoying that some people seem to be stuck in limbo there and cannot escape. I cannot fault anyone for believing it to be the conclusion of their political journey on the side of liberty--but it really isn't, there is more once you make it through.

This is one reason I believe a lot of libertarian "radicals" seem to be more conservative as they get older. I used to think it was because the flame of idealism died out, now I see that it is not necessarily that, but sometimes a progression of thought past the "true" libertarianism.

Vox still clings to the libertarian phrase, but I think in the truest sense of the word he is a Conservative. His personality is the type that doesn't like to cling to groups, though, and so to him I don't think he cares one bit what anyone really calls him.

Anonymous Ten41 August 07, 2012 1:49 PM  

I recently saw something to the effect of "If Obama were white, would blacks vote for him?" Probably on WND. :)

That argument is just as valid for Romney; "If Romney were a Democrat, would Republican's vote for him?" I do not believe that they would. Look at his previous statements and actions on abortion, guns, and government health care. What in his past made anyone even remotely think he was conservative?

As for voting, I tend to favor this quote:

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.
John Quincy Adams

Anonymous Anonymous August 07, 2012 1:51 PM  

Next week's column:

"Don't vote! It only encourages the bastards."

Jimbeaux

Anonymous fnn August 07, 2012 2:26 PM  

>And your point is?
I don't care how other people vote. Only how I vote. I'm not going to vote for a bad candidate just because other people do.

WTF point are you trying to make to whom when you cast your meaningless vote? Why don't you save yourself some trouble by holding your own strictly personal election in your basement?


My last vote was for Pat Buchanan in 2000. I was mildly amused by the the near certainty that I would cast the only PJB vote in the precinct. Almost incredibly, I ran into my Palestinian neighbor at the polling place. I smiled and told him, "Remember, there's only one anti-Zionist candidate on the ballot."

But I'd forgotten about the Arab-American Ralph Nader because he'd never taken any heat from the ADL.

Blogger James Dixon August 07, 2012 2:42 PM  

> WTF point are you trying to make to whom when you cast your meaningless vote? Why don't you save yourself some trouble by holding your own strictly personal election in your basement?

Who's trying to make a point?

Anonymous Gen. Kong August 07, 2012 2:47 PM  

Repuke DTs sez: We can only speculate because Gore was never a president, only a relatively powerless VP. Both Bush Jr. and Obama have track records as presidents and are therefore more easily compared. As bad as Dubya was, I believe less damage was done to the nation under Bush than under Obama.

Despite Vox's arguments to the contrary, I don't believe a Romney term will be as damaging as another Obama term. I may be wrong, or it may not matter in the long run. But strategically you have to make the decision that you think will result in the least amount of damage. If you're retreating from battle and retreat A will cost you half of your troops, while retreat B will only cost one third...and you have no other options...you choose B. You minimize damage, salvage what you can, and hope to fight another day.

If you've truly given up hope and expect the U.S. to crash and burn regardless of what any of us do now, then I can see just not voting. Admittedly I come closer and closer to that position every day.


You need to stop drinking that Repuke hootch and come on over to the dark side. On the USSA's first Mexican teleprompter-reader vs. the first magical negroid teleprompter-reader, please note that all of the tools being used by D'Won and his regime were put in place by Jorge W. Busheron and his fellow Repukes. The whole DHS national security state was enacted in the wake of an event (9/11) which never would have taken place if the regime had simply enforced its own immigration laws already on the books. Instead of sacking the gang of incompetents (or worse) in several federal agencies for dereliction of duty, the "soluton" offered by Bush & Co. was the "solution" which is always offered to the idiocracy by those who serve the squid - more government, bigger government, endless government: Let's start some wars, erect a police state at home while keeping the borders wide open. The Moose-Limb population of the USSA went from about 1 million to more than 2.5 million thanks to those stalwart crusaders fighting wars to secure the strategic poppyfields of Pashtoonistan. To sum it up neatly, Obama would not have been possible without the lawless criminality of Bush.

Now that we've experienced four long years of Bush III in black, the denizens of the dumbass dystopia are offered yet another "choice" of vampire-squid selected "candidates". Romney's actual positions while governor of Massachusetts are no different from those of D'Won. Both support the whole enchilada of endless vampire-squid rapine lootery (referred to as "free market capitaliism") with government support, totalitarian government, continual adventures to make the Ummah safe for feminism and sodomy, abolition of the second amendment, amnesty for parasite illegal infiltrators, imposition of the sodomite agenda, abortion, etc., etc., etc. Vox made a fairly cogent argument that Mittens is even worse that D'Won Mocha Messiah. Stay home. It's all a sham. As Uncle Yusif stated decades ago: those who case the votes decide nothing. Those who count them decide eveything.

Anonymous Gen. Kong August 07, 2012 3:09 PM  

DT (still shakin' away):

Bush was awful. Obama has been worse.

... and Obama II or Romney will be worse still. It only moves in one direction, in case you haven't figured it out yet. Remember two years ago? Remember all the hoopla about how the tea-party was going to "roll back Obamacare" and "cut federal spending" once the Repukes took control of congress? The Repukes - Weepin' Johnny and the Brokeback Boyz in the lead - have not resisted D'Won on any issue of substance. Obamacare's implementation is being funded in full. The debt ceiling has been upped twice and will be upped again - they'll probably just let D'Won up it himself from now on. Even the contempt citation for Eric "My People" Holder is bogus. Holder is still in office and the DOJ, BATFE, etc. remain fully funded to continue funneling arms to Mexican gangs (and God knows who else). The Repukes could have actually shut this crap down if they really wanted to. The fact that they've done nothing at all merely proves that they are obedient to some other force - all of their stated positions and objectives are obviously lies.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation (Ben) August 07, 2012 3:15 PM  

My favorite columns are the economic ones because I am challenged in my views and have to actually think.

The last two columns were very funny but they didn't do much in terms of converying anything that informed or challenged my views.

Vox, you don't have to do experiments to understand that politics is much more popular than economics. You can turn on talk radio and listen to the most stupid political shows. Stupid in the sense that it's all about being outraged at the democrats hypocrisies and the republican good/democrat bad dynamic.

Anonymous Gen. Kong August 07, 2012 3:22 PM  

BTW, take a look at what is being planned by those loyal oath-taking patriots in US military. Again, none of this would have been possible without the tireless and efficient work of George W. Bush and the Republican party. DHS Secretary-General Janet should be offering prayers on Lesbos to Imam al-Dubya and the Repukes. The longer this regime remains in place, the greater the likelihood of flat-out, boot-in-the-face, totalitarianism.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation (Ben) August 07, 2012 4:59 PM  

Gen. Kong, I read most of that document and it's disturbing to say the least. These trained killers in the army are cold as ice and have no qualms about murdering citizens.

Isn't it interesting that the main issue outline in the document is immigrtion, because it's accurate. If people knew the implications of immigration and could see its effects at one point in time instead of the slow gradual change, there would be a violent rebellion.

The army is filled with phsychopaths to say the least.

I got a kick out of them changing the psyop phrase with some bs.

Anonymous Noah B. August 07, 2012 5:29 PM  

That planning scenario is almost comical -- very 1993.

Anonymous Noah B. August 07, 2012 5:35 PM  

What I mean by that is that the military is clearly not prepared to operate in a post-collapse environment. The logistical, training, discipline, and communications issues challenges are going to be overwhelming.

Anonymous Gx1080 August 07, 2012 8:53 PM  

"Less bad" is the cry of pissants that are resigned to just beg for scraps. Such comtemptible weakness is a contagious disease. And frankly makes me sick. Nothing more than herd willingly walking to the slaughterhouse.

The focus on unimportant crap, I mean "social issues" comes from a complete surrender to the Banksters on the economic field. Even Dems admit that (with enough probing, of course).

Anonymous tiredofitall August 07, 2012 9:51 PM  

" If Gore had won... how do you think the US would be different right now?

Would the crash of 08 still happened?

Would we have invaded Afghanistan? Iraq?

Would Obama... be president right now?"

If Gore had won I imagine whatever you're paying at the gas-pump would most likely be tripled or even quadrupled. There'd be a tax on anyone not driving one of the president's approved green vehicles. The Solyndra debacle? President Gore would have doubled down on that until forced to stop. And 9/11? No matter what is said about Bush's reaction, I live in fear of what the appeasement happy dickless wonder Gore would have done.

The crash of '08 was well in the works long before Bush took office, (not saying he didn't help it along) but I can think of nothing Gore would have done any differently.

Would we have still invaded Afghanistan or Iraq? Honestly no. I don't think Gore would have seen any value in that for his party. He had no ulterior motive like Bush did about getting back at the guys who took a shot at his daddy. Would the middle east be any better off without a Gore-led invasion? Again, no. That part of the world is a never-ending shitstorm waiting to happen.

Finally would Obama be president now? No. Hitlery would have gotten the nod somewhere around 2004.

Blogger coainley August 07, 2012 10:41 PM  

I have three guesses:
"I'm Done"
"I Give Up"
"It's Over"

I like "It's Over" best because it can include your WND column resignation and the fate of the USA as it currently stands.

Anonymous Anonymous August 08, 2012 12:34 AM  

Vox
I would much prefer a Mormon over the magic negro anyday.

Anonymous Gen. Kong August 08, 2012 1:57 AM  

@FUBAR Nation (Ben):

Here is some background info on the authors and organizations behind the war plans made against the US civilian populace by the supposed oath-keepers and "patriots" in uniform.

Anonymous scoobius dubious August 08, 2012 2:13 AM  

"As bad as Dubya was, I believe less damage was done to the nation under Bush than under Obama."

Because Bush's monstrously bad presidency was the direct cause of Obama's presidency, Bush is responsible not only for the horrors of his own terms; he is also responsible for the entire train-wreck that is Obama.

Therefore, since (x + y) > y, Bush will always be the worse president, by simple math.

Anonymous scoobius dubious August 08, 2012 2:20 AM  

"If Gore had won I imagine whatever you're paying at the gas-pump would most likely be tripled or even quadrupled."

Not so. Gore didn't become an idiot enviro-prophet until after he lost to Bush. It was his compensation behavior, a way to make himself important in another context, since his primary context was now forever lost to him. I doubt even he believes all that horseshit, but a man like him needs to feel important the way that you and I need to breathe oxygen.

Gore comes from an old and crooked political family, and he knows where all the bodies are buried. I can recall some episodes from his vice presidency where he showed himself to be a cynical and calculating operator.

I'm not saying he would have made a good president, but he wouldn't have been the crazy bearded prophet that he is now; he would have approached the office like the knife-wielding prick he was raised to be. And besides, anything --ANYTHING!-- would have been better than the traitorous nation-destroying marionette that was George W. Bush.

Anonymous scoobius dubious August 08, 2012 2:29 AM  

"Almost incredibly, I ran into my Palestinian neighbor at the polling place."

You don't have a Palestinian "neighbor". You have a Palestinian invader, moocher, leech, and ultimately, conqueror.

Immigrants are not your neighbors. They are your replacements.

Anonymous Suomynona August 08, 2012 2:36 AM  

I would prefer Romney to win just so I wouldn't have to look at that smug nigger's face anymore, nor the first gorilla in designer clothes, pretending to be a first lady. If there's no difference, I'd prefer a white man in the office. Obama, with his white trash, Marxist cunt of a mother, and his Kenyan polygamist father is simply a disgrace to the office, to civilized people. A white Mormom is better than a nigger stealth Muslim, even if they both are traitorous, globalist cocksuckers in their politics.

Anonymous scoobius dubious August 08, 2012 3:04 AM  

"I cannot fault anyone for believing it to be the conclusion of their political journey on the side of liberty--but it really isn't, there is more once you make it through."

Well of course. Liberty, like everything else in the human physical world, is conditional and contingent -- it requires a matrix in which to flourish. Nothing in our universe springs from a vaccuum, everything is contingent on something.

"It was really through 2009 that the importance of tradition, race, and religion really became apparent to me."

Oh, and hey, look! There it is, right on cue -- tradition, race, and religion!

Cry you mercy, I took you for a joint-stool!

Anonymous Suomynona August 08, 2012 3:09 AM  

Vox's column next week:

"The Tree of Tyranny Is Refreshed By The Votes of Patriots (For Globalist Cocksuckers)"

Not really.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation (Ben) August 08, 2012 10:00 AM  

Gen. Kong, this comment on the sipsey street irregulars blog sums up how I think and feel:

"I despise these treasonous bastards. This whole unfolding tyrannical effort of "homeland security" reeks of the stench of military psychopaths gone rouge. The day I see the military engage American citizens, is the day I pick up my weapon with extreme prejudice. The mere fact that there are people in the military preparing and training for domestic operations, makes my blood boil. I don't know what happened to this country, but I DO know this. Eisenhower was right. The MIC is a rotting, vile, cesspool of degenerate vulgar maggots, whose only purpose is war...war...and more war. They are a revulsion to humanity and I SPIT IN THEIR FACE."

Anonymous 43rd Virginia Calalry August 08, 2012 10:31 AM  

"Obama is a Muslim, Black Supremacy, Progressive. Liberal Buffoon" Give credit where credit is due.

Blogger Galt-in-Da-Box August 08, 2012 1:44 PM  

Birth control poster kids...The love affair between chortling GOP dittoheads and those who betray them continues unabated!

Blogger R. Bradley Andrews August 08, 2012 2:08 PM  

Does voting for a third party candidate or write in legitimize the election?

As to the issue of the popularity of political columns vs. an economic one, I don't think the comparison is valid since the economic one requires an understanding of a lot more math. I am decent in math and I still have to watch the nuances, how will most people who are paranoid of math stay interested? Politics is "easier" to discuss.

I am hoping to spend some time really reading RGD and other posts here, but that will take time. Learning about politics also requires time, but less to have a basic feel for things.

Blogger R. Bradley Andrews August 08, 2012 7:01 PM  

I would also note that blaming it all on Bush is a bit shortsighted. He just built on the foundation he was given as well. For sucked a lot more, as did Lincoln in the eyes of many here. You would ink we only had 2 bad presidents to look at the comments here.

Anonymous DonReynolds August 09, 2012 2:16 PM  

Noah B "What I mean by that is that the military is clearly not prepared to operate in a post-collapse environment. The logistical, training, discipline, and communications issues challenges are going to be overwhelming."

This was not a big problem when the Civil War started. The regular US military was tiny at the time and was generally not involved in the Civil War. Mostly it was sent West to deal with the hostile Indians. The Civil War was fought mainly by state militias and a hastily assembled command, few of which had any previous combat experience. Those who had served in the Mexican War, some 15 years earlier, were often valued.

Is Civil War possible in the USA in the not so distant future? Honestly, I see little opportunity to avoid it and even less interest in doing so.

Anonymous Anonymous September 06, 2012 3:02 PM  

Here is our airport screening in the Constitution:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

We the People have shirked our responsibilities to our security. We the People have allowed our servants to become the masters.

It is not the fault of the "government," the politicians or the media - It is the fault of...

We the People

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts