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

Tuesday, November 06, 2012

2012 Presidential Endorsement

First, here are a small selection of my favorite endorsements from the more than 200 that were presented by the Dread Ilk.  I was surprised to see that there were more of them than were presented at Whatever, but I was not surprised to see that they were considerably more diverse and much more indicative of being the result of actual and original cognitive activity.
Romney...b/c he has executive style hair this country desperately needs
- TRK

I am endorsing Romney because he is the only chance to save the republic from the impending maelstrom of....  Just kidding. I am voting for Romney because it will be fun to revel in the misery of the sanctimonious messiah worshippers and see the MSNBC crew put on suicide watch.
- Judge

Not voting so that one day I can look my children in the eyes and tell them that I never supported any of it!
- Cinco

I don't vote. Here is why: It's Hobson's Choice, disguised. No matter who you vote for, you get the exact same game plan. Since I am going to receive the same outcome no matter my vote, I prefer not to contribute to the appearance of legitimacy of the voting process.
- P-Dawg

I cannot support Obama or Romney. Neither candidate supports the constitution of the US, nor the freedoms, rights and responsibilities it guarantees. If liberty and freedom of conscience means nothing to them, then the candidates mean nothing to me.
- wordwarrior

Voting is an absolute waste of time. When you read and listen to what Americans think on almost any subject, social or political, you must conclude that prosperity has indeed bred contempt. Contempt for reality.
- Altered Fate

Mitt, for two reasons  1. I wanted to vote on the down ticket items, and leaving the presidental circles empty can get you ballot tossed.  2. It makes my inlaws nuts.
- RedJack

In the time since I’ve been legally able to vote I have only seen ambitious politicians who have managed to do nothing but screw things up despite their best intentions of making a positive change. This has led me to the following conclusion: Change is not feasible.... So I intend to vote for the the candidate with no ambition to do much more than collect a paycheck and enjoy the title, rather than vainly hope they might do something worthwhile and being perennially let down. Even in the office of president I would rather have a vain pompous ass who had no sites beyond making himself look good and protecting his legacy for the next 4 years so he can safely pass the buck when he’s gone. That is why I will be voting for Obama.
- NateM

I am abstaining this year. Gary Johnson is a pathetic excuse for a Libertarian who thinks his name recognition will help him get votes as a Libertarian candidate. If the Lib. Party had actually nominated someone that understood first principles, I would again go to vote for the Lib. Party in my district. However, unless or until I see that the LP actually stands for what it says it is about I will continue to abstain.
- CunningDove

Romney. First of all, I am just tired of Obama and Biden. They bore me. They are pathetic and I am tired of hearing the idiotic drivel that oozes from them.  Second, Romney will do better with appointing Supreme Court justices, and other judges for that matter. I know Vox scoffs at this reason. But let's do the math on the Obamacare decision, for example. 80% of the Republican appointed judges voted the right way. 0% of the Democrat appointed judges voted the right way.
- Boetain

This is my reason for not voting.  In John Locke's Second Treatise of Government any legitimate government must first obtain direct consent of the governed. This is later reaffirmed by the unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.
- difranco

I'm voting Romney because I think the implosion of Western civilization in America will proceed at a slower pace under him. We should prop up the vestiges of better times that remain in our laws for as long as we can. Maybe in the meantime some saint will rise up with a way to turn the tide.
- DanDan

Writing in Ron Paul as a protest vote.
- Grendelizer
One can make a good Leninesque case for voting for Obama: the faster the disaster, the sooner the solution.  One can make a solid prevent defense case for voting for Romney: the longer collapse is delayed, the more time we have to eat, drink, make merry, and reach the sweet release of death before it all comes tumbling down.  Sadly, CunningDove is correct and one cannot make a good case for voting for Gary Johnson; the Libertarian candidate is not a libertarian.  But one can also make a good case for writing in Ron Paul as a protest vote.

However, all of these reasonable arguments are trumped by one overarching principle: maintaining the illusion of legitimate democratic rule through representation requires the participation of the voter.  By voting, you are participating in the illusion.  You are sustaining it, even if you are refusing to engage in the immoral choice of the lesser of two evils by voting third party or writing in a protest candidate.  This is why avowedly anti-democratic nations pass laws that mandate voting.  They are not interested in knowing the will of the people, they merely wish to use it as a veil, as is the case here in the United States today.

I can, of course, cite history to show that genuine change of the sort that is desperately needed seldom comes from the ballot box.  I can demonstrate that your one vote for president will not, under any circumstances, be permitted to determine the outcome of the election.  I can explain how supporting the lesser of two evils is not a morally permissible choice. But those things are irrelevant in comparison with the fundamental choice between participating in the illusion or refusing to participate in it.

Therefore, I endorse not voting for anyone for U.S. president.

I am not saying that one should never vote under any circumstances, or even that you should not vote today.  There are many important state and local measures concerning which your vote does actually matter and you should not hesitate to make your opinion formally known.  But I do recommend refusing your consent to the electoral sham of the U.S. presidential process.

Labels:

84 Comments:

Anonymous Josh November 06, 2012 9:40 AM  

HOW CAN YOU NOT VOTE!

DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE DIED SO YOU WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE?

IF YOU DON'T VOTE YOU'RE HELPING OBAMA!

The best reason to not vote is because a great chorus of idiots is telling you to.

If only Christians cared as much about getting the lost to go to church as they deem to do about getting people to go vote.

Anonymous TheExpat November 06, 2012 9:42 AM  

The only true freedom, is the freedom to opt out.

Anonymous The One November 06, 2012 9:45 AM  

Mitt, for two reasons 1. I wanted to vote on the down ticket items, and leaving the presidental circles empty can get you ballot tossed. 2. It makes my inlaws nuts.
- RedJack

Is this actually true, the ballot tossing part? I wrote in Ron Paul so I hope I'm safe, NH has a measure to write into the constitution no income tax, that actually matters to me.

Anonymous RINO November 06, 2012 9:46 AM  

This is clearly a win-win situation. If Romney wins there's a slightly higher percentage chance that things will improve, and if Obama wins that will provide endless trolling fodder against VD unmatched since the hillary prediction.

Blogger Giraffe November 06, 2012 9:50 AM  

I notice you didn't mention the Constitution Party candidate.

Anonymous JartStar November 06, 2012 9:52 AM  

One can make a solid prevent defense case for voting for Romney: the longer collapse is delayed, the more time we have to eat, drink, make merry, and reach the sweet release of death before it all comes tumbling down.

The farther out the better IMO as it gives us more time to prepare and enjoy life now. The only argument for crashing now is that it will be worse later but a) what's the metric of it being "worse"? b) if it happens now or later what rises from the ashes may not be better.

Anonymous Josh November 06, 2012 9:52 AM  

If Romney wins there's a slightly higher percentage chance that things will improve,

For Goldman Sachs. And the Israel lobby.

Anonymous RINO November 06, 2012 9:53 AM  

Vote Romney: It'll be better to rebuild after the boomers are gone.

Anonymous Porky! November 06, 2012 9:54 AM  

I hereby endorse the Tar and Feathers Party.

Start plucking.

Anonymous Josh November 06, 2012 9:54 AM  

I notice you didn't mention the Constitution Party candidate.

In Vox's defense, he may not be aware of that candidate.

Furthermore, he's not on all the state ballots, and he supports the wars on drugs and terror, as well as the patriot act.

Anonymous Josh November 06, 2012 9:55 AM  

I hereby endorse the Tar and Feathers Party.

The Bourbon Party.

Anonymous RINO November 06, 2012 9:55 AM  

Furthermore, he's not on all the state ballots, and he supports the wars on drugs and terror, as well as the patriot act.

So they're running Republicans now like the Libertarian Party?

Anonymous dh November 06, 2012 10:00 AM  

VD-- I tend to agree with your advice, but voting for some reason seems important.

Anonymous VD November 06, 2012 10:02 AM  

I notice you didn't mention the Constitution Party candidate.

He's irrelevant. A third party that claims to be based on the Constitution, but supports the drug war and the Patriot Act isn't even worth mentioning.

Anonymous Lihere November 06, 2012 10:02 AM  

I cannot take four more years of Obama with his smug supporters and the media.

Anonymous re allow anonymous comments November 06, 2012 10:02 AM  

As should be obvious from my comment history, I endorse Romney because it appears that he intends to shear us rather than slaughter us.

Blogger Giraffe November 06, 2012 10:04 AM  

In Vox's defense, he may not be aware of that candidate.

Furthermore, he's not on all the state ballots, and he supports the wars on drugs and terror, as well as the patriot act.


"Constitution Party", supports the patriot act.

Excuse me while I go pick up the shattered pieces of my exploded head.

I was going to vote for him as a protest vote, I figure he is less likely to be pro abortion than the Libertarian.

Blogger Positive Dennis November 06, 2012 10:10 AM  

Off to vote on ballot initiatives. I realized yesterday that the party I voted for in my first election, in 1972, American Independent, is still on the California ballot! It is tempting to go full circle.

Blogger jamsco November 06, 2012 10:11 AM  

Vox, could explain in more detail why the presidential election is a sham and state elections are not? Isn't it just a matter of scale?

Don't state elections have the same sham factor?

Blogger jamsco November 06, 2012 10:15 AM  

Sorry, same potential sham factor?

Anonymous Daniel November 06, 2012 10:17 AM  

The difference between state government and federal government is not merely a question of scale.

Anonymous VryeDenker November 06, 2012 10:19 AM  

The only reason I voted in the South African general election was because I wanted to help prevent the ANC from gaining a 2/3rds majority, which would give them the power to amend(read: completely rewrite) the constitution(as if it weren't "progressive" enough as it is).

Anonymous Josh November 06, 2012 10:19 AM  

Voting isn't a right, it's a privilege granted by the government. Furthermore, even it if were a right, there is no compulsion to exercise that right, any more than a compulsion to exercise any other right. The same logic would apply to telling someone that they should watch pornography or perform abortions because someone is defending their right to do those things.

Anonymous Lysander Spooner November 06, 2012 10:24 AM  

Etienne de boetie

Anonymous Lysander Spooner November 06, 2012 10:25 AM  

Etienne de La boetie.


Corrected.

Anonymous Clay November 06, 2012 10:28 AM  

I want to hurl every time I see or hear Obama or Moochelle.

It's Romney's turn.

Anonymous Unpaid Goldman Sach's Intern November 06, 2012 10:34 AM  

Thank You white womyn!!!!!!!!

Hey Hey Ho Ho Western Civilization Has Got to Go
Hey Hey Ho Ho Western Civilization Has Got to Go
Hey Hey Ho Ho Western Civilization Has Got to Go
Hey Hey Ho Ho Western Civilization Has Got to Go
Hey Hey Ho Ho Western Civilization Has Got to Go

Anonymous RedJack November 06, 2012 10:41 AM  

The One
It happened in Iowa the last election. Ballots that had nothing marked for president were tossed in some places.

Had something to do with voting fraud in a small town that made the news. And the pleasure I get from making my wife's extended family nuts out weighs the revulsion for Magic Underwear.

Anonymous Crispy November 06, 2012 10:48 AM  

Write in Ron Paul. The primary purpose of the vote for President is moot in most of the country--many states are already firmly for team red or team blue, and one vote more or less will not affect the outcome. A secondary purpose could be to embolden third parties, though it will probably be decades before a third-party President is elected. At least one can push toward that day.

Anonymous Rally November 06, 2012 10:51 AM  

Vote Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.

He can kick any other candidate's ass.

Anonymous Daniel November 06, 2012 10:53 AM  

dh
VD-- I tend to agree with your advice, but voting for some reason seems important.

Please tell me you were being clever, because that is funny. If not,

I'm pretty sure that Vox's thesis agrees with your experience: voting seems important. That's the illusion part.

Because local modified mob rule in a homogenous community works (for example, I'm able to organize opposition to taxes and stupid local spending fairly easily among my neighbors) we quite easily are taken in by the "merely a difference in scale" issue.

However, even in the tiny homogeneous state of Iowa, the difference between the local mob, the county mob, the district mob, and the state mob is one that is more than just scale: after all, the good people of Manly and Fertile (two tiny rural neighboring communities) are like-minded and tend to have traditionally libertarian leanings - i.e. they don't vote in a lot of nonsense. However, even though they locally have supreme self-determination, and seem to exercise it in a little "c" conservative manner, they are muted by other mobs when it comes to county and district elections, and swamped when it comes to state. They don't exist at the federal level, except as its victims and/or random beneficiaries (mostly victims).

So it isn't just scale. It is also about leverage: the larger the mob population, the greater opportunity for fraud, "voting blocs", manipulation, and downright fiat "election."

By the time you have federal elections in place, the fraud is complete. Entire states other than the big hitters are fundamentally irrelevant to the process.

Mr. Manly Man and Miss Mrytle Fertile? Fuggitaboudit. The Federal mob is not thirty acting citizens with pitchforks and torches chasing Frankenstein's monster into the windmill. The Federal mob is Frankenstein's monster - a creature foreign to the imaginary ideal of democracy and "the will of the people", and he's running all the windmill farms.

The little people in the voting booth, from a Federal perspective, are forkless, torchless participants in the elevation of a new creature: Frankenstein triumphant.

This is why democracy historically and currently always, always, always wanes (and wanes quickly when it does): the elites - the mad Victor F.'s - have the will to manipulate the inherent weakness of large scale mob rule.

The Framers had a very good design, but even they openly acknowledged that its long-term success relied on an impossibility: the relative sinlessness of man.

Anonymous Stilicho November 06, 2012 10:53 AM  

I did not vote for those that stole.
I did not vote for the endless dole.
I did not vote for the bankster scam.
I did not vote for the Hair or 'Bam.

I did not vote for the dronic war.
I did not vote for for spending more.
I did vote, but I cannot care.
I did not vote for that ugly pair.

This time I voted for Mr. Paul.
Though it may not change one thing at all.
And still I do not give a damn,
But I did not vote for the Hair or 'Bam.

The Lockean words, we highly prize.
And one must not legitimize
The tyrant's self-promoting scam,
Do not vote for the Hair or 'Bam.

Anonymous Anonymous November 06, 2012 11:02 AM  

There is a webb page called serfs-up.net. He talks about how the 14th amendment has enabled people to volenteer for servitude by becoming "registered voters." I think there is a great deal of truth in what he says.

Anonymous JartStar November 06, 2012 11:07 AM  

1. Voting = Freedom.
2. Maximizing the number of voters = increasing freedom.
3. Our current system will not let children and felons vote.
4. Why does the US hate freedom?

Blogger James Dixon November 06, 2012 11:08 AM  

> Therefore, I endorse not voting for anyone for U.S. president.

I can't disagree, but I can't make myself do it either.

Too stubborn for my own good. :(

> I notice you didn't mention the Constitution Party candidate.

They're not on the ballot here. They were last time, and I voted for them. Johnson is the best of a very bad lot this time.

There were local ballot issues I needed to vote on (a bond issue and a constitutional amendment), so I had reason to vote. I voted early last Thursday.

Anonymous Josh November 06, 2012 11:12 AM  

1. Voting = Freedom.2. Maximizing the number of voters = increasing freedom.3. Our current system will not let children and felons vote.4. Why does the US hate freedom?

Because freedom is why the terrorists attack us, if we have less freedom, they won't attack us.

Anonymous mjb November 06, 2012 11:13 AM  

Change will come when it comes down to bullets over ballots. I don't want to see that day.

Anonymous a good ROI November 06, 2012 11:14 AM  

"Vox, could explain in more detail why the presidential election is a sham and state elections are not? Isn't it just a matter of scale?

Don't state elections have the same sham factor?"

While there is potential for sham in state, and local elections you are much more likely to be able to "effect change" on the local level then the federal level. Plus those in office are closer to you on the local level, so when they do eventually run far enough a muck you can go and "effect change" on them much easier then on the federal level.

Anonymous VD November 06, 2012 11:14 AM  

Just to be clear, the Constitution Party platform OPPOSES the Patriot Act. However, the Constitution Party's candidate, Virgil Goode, voted to make it permanent in 2005.

Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)

Anonymous Tallen November 06, 2012 11:15 AM  

...illusion of legitimate democratic rule through representation requires the participation of the voter...

I can demonstrate that your one vote for president will not, under any circumstances, be permitted to determine the outcome of the election.

Is there not a case that my one protest vote for Ron Paul has no bearing on maintaining the illusion of legitimate democratic (representative democratic, whatever you would like to call it) rule?

My take is the illusion will be there whether I vote or not. It seems worthwhile in my mind to participate in the process so that I can say I used my chance to have a voice (illusion or no), but did not support the destruction of the nation.

Anonymous Josh November 06, 2012 11:22 AM  

Just to be clear, the Constitution Party platform OPPOSES the Patriot Act. However, the Constitution Party's candidate, Virgil Goode, voted to make it permanent in 2005.

Well, that certainly makes all the difference...

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 06, 2012 11:23 AM  

I voted in every election since I was eighteen. My first vote for president was when I was in the US Marines.

This election, I will not be voting. Nor will I ever vote again in this country.

This country has achieved what Karl Marx wanted, "The Rule of the Proletariat". America is a Marxist country. It is the rule of the stupid womyn and minorities that are guided by our Jewish elite.

The Jews run this country. It is their country. They run it how they want to. Since the own the media--they don't have to listen to any criticism either. I point to the Natural Born status of Hussein. That a man called "Hussein" can rule this country, that a mulatto can rule this once great country is a disgrace and a calamity. It was the Jews that groomed this fellow just to shove it in the face of the WASP and the WASP is just so ignorant and stupid, blinded by the overpreaching of Love from the pulpit. WASPS as a group are morons.

America is a Marxist country with a ruling Jewish elite that governs and controls all things. Holocaustrinity as assured that all WASPS and Catholics remain subservient to the Jew.

Whatever happens today, the Jew Rules.

Anonymous Daniel November 06, 2012 11:32 AM  

My take is the illusion will be there whether I vote or not. It seems worthwhile in my mind to participate in the process so that I can say I used my chance to have a voice (illusion or no), but did not support the destruction of the nation.

I don't think so. When I walk into a voting booth, I could be voting all-anarchy, all-the time, and the powers that be wouldn't care one whit. They care that I consent to their government and their process. They pick the winner anyhow, esp. at the state and federal level.

I view my consent with the same regard that the Union consented to land treaties with the Indians - an unpleasant convenience for the moment: in short - I want to vote against a $50,000,000 local bond, I want to vote for the Sheriff who's platform is in opposition to cameras and drones, I want to vote out lady judges on principle. Why? Because my vote does get some of those short term results at the local level.

Even if I leave President blank on the ballot, the ballot counts toward the Federal participant tally. So, by walking in to vote, they've got my damned consent.

I'll have no problem abandoning the booth and even local issues next time around, when Romney has it so rigged that he'll be sowing the automatic seeds for a third term. But right now, they aren't coming for me, and I'm not coming for them. So I'll play their game and give my illusion of consent to their illusion of democracy, because the carrot on their stick is some local things I have a say-so in, and the stick is going to swing anyway.

Anonymous RINO November 06, 2012 11:33 AM  

Virgil Goode? They really are the Libertarian Party now ... just craving all those Republican D-listers.

Anonymous Gx1080 November 06, 2012 11:38 AM  

Since it doesn't affect me at all who wins, I only want that delicious Liberal butthurt that Romney is going to get for all.

Anonymous Anonymous November 06, 2012 11:45 AM  

Go ahead and don't vote. Half of eligible Americans already don't. The only message they send is, "whatever you guys want is OK with me". The government behaves as if it has your full consent either way. It will continue to do so even if only 1% vote. Our system does not need a quorum to hold the outcomes of elections as valid.

--Prof Hale

Anonymous 691 November 06, 2012 11:52 AM  

In a choice between Romney and Obama, I'd prefer Obama, but on principle I refuse to vote for a president who unilaterally assassinates American citizens.

Anonymous Daniel November 06, 2012 11:53 AM  

Hale - that is not the message. You are correct that 1% participation will be just fine for the oligarchy, but to suggest that people walking out of the room is a message of support you've got some wires crossed.

Blogger Good Will November 06, 2012 12:04 PM  

VD: I am not saying that one should never vote under any circumstances, or even that you should not vote today. There are many important state and local measures concerning which your vote does actually matter and you should not hesitate to make your opinion formally known. But I do recommend refusing your consent to the electoral sham of the U.S. presidential process.

We vote to keep the process alive. A people may overthrow a tyrant by blood, "refreshing the tree of liberty" as it were.

But that's not our customary fashion. We vote. (While we still can!) During those years when saviors, messiahs and angels are not on the ballot, we choose from among mere men and women -- with all their flaws, foibles...and the evil machinations of "the system"!

Our system is not perfect. (No system ever was. Even one of Jesus' "chosen" betrayed Him.)

We keep voting, flawed as the process might be, just as we keep our own failing hearts and struggling lungs in operation. Some drops of blood may seem more precious than some, just as some breaths may appear more "necessary" than others -- especially when one is gored or under water!

But all are necessary. Each is "the most importantest election evah!"

Otherwise, any single election may be our last.

Anonymous szook November 06, 2012 12:08 PM  

Once again, friends and fellow Ilk....I implore you to write in Alan Keyes....support the better black man every time.

Anonymous WinstonWebb November 06, 2012 12:11 PM  

If every single solitary American voter boycotted the election and stayed home, Obama would will by 3,500,000 to -0-

No, do not consider this an endorsement of Captain Underoos, because it is not. It is a fact that the blue faction of the ruling party has no qualms about fraud.

I'm certain the red faction does, too. They just aren't as obvious about it.

Anonymous Anonymous November 06, 2012 12:18 PM  

...Obama would WIN by 3,500,000 to -0-...

Anonymous Tad November 06, 2012 12:23 PM  

The real fun comes when Obama wins and we get to watch the internal GOP warfare. The GOP lost a chance to take the senate when the Tea Party put candidates in a number of states that couldn't keep their mouth shut about what they believed. This will be fun to watch.

The moderates in the GOP just might make a play for the party. But it will be the Tea Party that will be fun to watch. How will they react to their candidates getting blistered? "They were not conservative enough!"???

Obama wins with 303 to Romney's 235.
Obama wines popular vote by 2 points

Anonymous Daniel November 06, 2012 12:27 PM  

I think you are a Tad off.

Anonymous WinstonWebb November 06, 2012 12:31 PM  

The GOP lost a chance to take the senate when the Tea Party put candidates in a number of states that couldn't keep their mouth shut about what they believed.

Please provide 2 examples, or this is nothing more than a naked assertion.

Anonymous jay c November 06, 2012 12:31 PM  

Sadly, CunningDove is correct and one cannot make a good case for voting for Gary Johnson...

Obviously, I disagree. I voted for Johnson.

1. Our only choice is voting for the lesser of numerous evils or not voting. Johnson seems to be the least evil of the ones I know anything about. He's not a "real" libertarian, but by many standards, neither am I. I'm a racist, misogynist, homophobe who wants to close the borders, reverse "universal" suffrage, and execute homosexuals. After a jury trial with witnesses and according to local--not federal--laws, of course. Johnson would probably disagree with me on all three points, but then I did say that he was the lesser of evils, not a good.
2. I want the country to become more libertarian. Greater numbers for libertarian candidates--even if they don't win and their vote totals aren't reported by many news media--means a few more people will learn about libertarian ideas. My vote doesn't matter in deciding who will be the next president, but there is a miniscule chance that it might help two or three or four elections down the road.

Anonymous Josh November 06, 2012 12:39 PM  

Please provide 2 examples, or this is nothing more than a naked assertion.

Missouri and Indiana, but I think that's really because the media created the firestorm.

Blogger JD Curtis November 06, 2012 12:40 PM  

The reasons NOT to vote for Obama are inumerable.

Anonymous JCclimber November 06, 2012 12:43 PM  

Voted for libertarian party for only one reason: I'd like to see ANY third party, even the Green party for heaven's sake, reach the 5% of votes necessary to get matching funds.

A 3 way circus will be harder to control by the puppet masters. And once you have 3 parties, it will be easier to get 4 parties. And so on.

I never thought I'd see the day when I'd prefer the Italian or Greek government system, but there it is. As Vox has said, the Italians have made an art form out of evading government taxes and controls.

I also voted so that my one solitary vote can rack up against all the new taxes on the ballot in Kalifornia. I also get a chance to vote that the death penalty be abolished in Kalifornia (life without parole instead), where we are spending huge dollars to maintain and process the death row inmates. Only a handful have even been executed since the 80's anyway.

Anonymous WinstonWebb November 06, 2012 12:45 PM  

Josh,
I knew Akin would be one.

I thought Murdock was still doing well even after his comment?

Anonymous Tallen November 06, 2012 12:48 PM  

They care that I consent to their government and their process

Daniel, do you have any proof of this? By proof I mean material penalties for not voting.

Blogger Giraffe November 06, 2012 12:50 PM  

What is the big deal about consent? Tyrants don't give a crap about consent.

Anonymous Josh November 06, 2012 12:52 PM  

I thought Murdock was still doing well even after his comment

I think that race is either a toss up or leaning democrat.

Anonymous WinstonWebb November 06, 2012 12:55 PM  

OK, I yield on the 2 examples.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera November 06, 2012 12:55 PM  

Well, I'm convinced. I will change my vote from Ron Paul to "present".

"However, all of these reasonable arguments are trumped by one overarching principle: maintaining the illusion of legitimate democratic rule through representation requires the participation of the voter. By voting, you are participating in the illusion. You are sustaining it, even if you are refusing to engage in the immoral choice of the lesser of two evils by voting third party or writing in a protest candidate. This is why avowedly anti-democratic nations pass laws that mandate voting. They are not interested in knowing the will of the people, they merely wish to use it as a veil, as is the case here in the United States today."

Can't find a hole in that logic.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera November 06, 2012 12:56 PM  

Can we get an election thread like the weekly NFL threads?

Anonymous Aeoli Pera November 06, 2012 12:58 PM  

Giraffe,

It's a psychological thing. Was that a genuine question that I should spend time answering, sarcasm, or a rhetorical question?

Blogger Good Will November 06, 2012 1:00 PM  

W.LindsayWheeler November 06, 2012 11:23 AM
...That a man called "Hussein" can rule this country, that a mulatto can rule this once great country is a disgrace and a calamity. It was the Jews that groomed this fellow just to shove it in the face of the WASP and the WASP is just so ignorant and stupid, blinded by the overpreaching of Love from the pulpit. WASPS as a group are morons...Whatever happens today, the Jew Rules."


Wheeler,

Your rants are always a disturbing alloy of ugly racism, virulent anti-semitism and truth.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a "mulatto" in the White House. (It was not given that name for racial reasons, I'm assured.) Most Americans (rightly) don't give a fat rat what race, skin color, name or even national heritage one brings to the Oval Office -- so long as the candidate is a true red, white and blue American.

Our current POTUS isn't. (And that is more than disconcerting.) But (American)Jews have just as much a right to "run" this country as anyone else. (If "gentiles" can't keep it, they don't deserve it.)

You, of all people, should be properly disturbed that Romney is a Mormon. Mormons have a philosophical, historical, religious -- and, some would say, spiritual and genetic connection -- to the Jews that trumps virtually any other national association. Mormons love the Jews, even if Mormons don't agree with them politically, religiously, or culturally. (The Jews are the Mormons "spiritual" ancestors, if you will, and they are not to be deprecated in Mormon circles.) If the Jews ever build another temple on the Temple Mount, it will be done (no doubt) with Mormon cooperation.

Christians and Jews (though assuredly not Muslims) may welcome this enterprise.

Anonymous Tad November 06, 2012 1:02 PM  

"The GOP lost a chance to take the senate when the Tea Party put candidates in a number of states that couldn't keep their mouth shut about what they believed.

Please provide 2 examples, or this is nothing more than a naked assertion."

Akin, Murdoch

Blogger Magister Wood November 06, 2012 1:07 PM  

Ah, the priceless looks on my students faces when I tell them I am voting for None of the Above, for they are all evil.

Anonymous BillB November 06, 2012 1:07 PM  

Individuals DO NOT VOTE for the President of the United States. The Framers KNEW the people were too stupid and created the Electoral College to protect the people from themselves.

Electoral college members are the sole authority for choosing the President. The popular vote cannot bind the Electors because the Constitution does not allow for such a binding control by the people. State legislatures have the authority to create any method they wish to choose Electors relative the constitutional restrictions on Electors, i.e. no position of profit or trust under the federal government so no one on social security or welfare or food stamps, no one in any federal job, no one receiving federal grants for any reason. - eliminates a lot of the population.

What the People have been participating in for decades is a bunch of smoke and mirror lies used by those in power to make the useful idiots think they have a choice.

And We the People have this because just as the Framers knew We the People are too f---ing stupid.

Anonymous Tad November 06, 2012 1:09 PM  

Bill,

What you say about how the EC functions is mostly true. But it's important to note that in, what, 95% of more of the cases the will of the people has been represented in the vote the EC members.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard November 06, 2012 1:16 PM  

Right, never forgive a man for what he thought was a Goode--eh-heh-heh, geddit?--idea at the time. Better throw em off a cliff.

Excuse my poor typing, posting from a bar. I'm polling low. I hate you all.

I'd destroy you, but whiskey.

Blogger Joshua_D November 06, 2012 1:22 PM  

Good Will November 06, 2012 12:04 PM

We keep voting, flawed as the process might be, just as we keep our own failing hearts and struggling lungs in operation


We keep voting, right up until we don't. Then, the shooting starts.

Anonymous Gen. Kong November 06, 2012 2:07 PM  

Giraffe:
I notice you didn't mention the Constitution Party candidate.

Not even on the ballot in many states. The common error of third parties is throwing all their energy and money into national races they have little if any actual chance of winning - assuming they can even make the ballot. The money and energy would be better spent concentrating on becoming an alternative in a couple of states and expanding from there.

Anonymous Tad November 06, 2012 2:08 PM  

"We keep voting, right up until we don't. Then, the shooting starts."

There's no shooting coming....except when the GOP stands in a circle and begins to jerk off after they lose.

Anonymous Gen. Kong November 06, 2012 2:15 PM  

Rally:
Vote Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.

He can kick any other candidate's ass.


DAMN RIGHT!

Anonymous Sexual Chocolate Imperion November 06, 2012 7:33 PM  

To clarify Wheeler's point on the "Jews Rule."

As for Jesuits and Jews (I use the proper noun to err on the side of political correctness), the main principle is that neither subscribes to the Jesus of Scripture, and both are subservient to Rome. The declaration “We have no king but Caesar” is observably as binding today as it was when the priests and the pharisees uttered it during Christ’s trial.

To those who insist that Jews run the world, I say okay, but only by the permission and appointment of Rome.

According to Manfred Barthel, whose book on the Jesuits was submitted to several Jesuits for approval, “the Order has always had a reputation as a refuge for Jewish converts.” The second General of the Order, Diego Laynez, made clear in his autobiography that his family were prominent “New Christians,” as Jewish converts in Spain and Portugal were called.

By the end of the 17th century, the Jesuits were suffering accusations of defiling Christian doctrine and morality with their “rabbinical-pharisaical mentality” and “subtle Talmudic incantations.”

In 1814, however, the Jesuits turned anti-semitic. I believe this was in order to mask their collusion with the money power operated by the House of Rothschild, “guardian of the Vatican Treasury.”

Still, behind the convenient facade of antisemitism, as Bismarck wrote (quoting Kaiser Wilhelm I), “the Jews and the Jesuits always flock together.” I think after reading RULERS OF EVIL you’ll understand how the Jesuits can simultaneously embrace, discredit, frame, and annihilate the Jews.

The Jesuits are, after all, an army run by a General who can do anything to anyone under Rome’s jurisdiction in order to preserve the Roman State, which is evidently the New World Order.
-- F. Tupper Saussy, February 11, 2000


Michael S. Rozeff has reminded us, that we have empire because the Constitution not only allows for it, but implicitly if not explicitly calls for it. If 1789 is not the beginning of the slippery slope to despotism, then 1865 certainly is. Gen. William Odom (deceased in '08), former NSA chief, who called for the impeachment of GWB, said that we had empire, and in his mind rightfully so, but we lost it due to poor stewardship, and that we will never have it again. For one, according to him, we no longer deserve it. To those who think an extra decade or so of "slowing the runaway freight train down," has any merit, then I give you Simon Black to explain it to you.

The person this land we call America needs, is one that not only knows how and what pieces to pick up, but knows what to do with them. That person will not come via consent of the people. That person will come via the necessity of humanity.

I was just recently watching the series Jericho. Interesting how grandpa Green made the comparison of the British East India Co. to Jennings and Rauls, and Ravenwood to the Hessians. Whatever nation one thinks he can get back and secure for his progeny, it will be with revolution and blood. And, it will all come once again, only with the consent of Rome/Babylon, as it did some 236 years ago.

So then, this person asks once again...

Do You give YOUR consent?

Blogger Rantor November 06, 2012 7:44 PM  

Fox says SC GOES TO Romney! Even though he is far behind in early vote count

Anonymous The other skeptic November 07, 2012 12:18 AM  

Well, it looks like Israel will have to go it alone against Iran, it seems.

Anonymous The other skeptic November 07, 2012 12:23 AM  

Those evil voting machine were trying to steal the erection from Obama

Anonymous The other skeptic November 07, 2012 12:35 AM  

California votes for Unicorns and Pixie Dust.

Anonymous The other skeptic November 07, 2012 1:26 AM  

How wonderful, Obama is our social media president.

Also, the Lizard Queen is being talked being talked about for 2016.

Anonymous Ferdyschenko November 07, 2012 5:07 PM  

Re: "Voting the 'lesser of two evils' is morally wrong."

Obama is against religious liberty and for abortion and the redefinition of marriage, whereas Romney is not. In light of this, I cannot maintain that it was not morally permissible to vote for Romney on the "lesser of two evils" grounds. If anything, there was a moral imperative to vote for him in spite of his glaring flaws.

Man A: "I'm going to bankrupt this country and X (kill babies), Y (make Christian precepts incompatible with the practice of medicine) and Z (legally redefine human nature)."
Man B: "I'm going to bankrupt this country."

Man B gets my vote, for, though rotten, he is orders of magnitude better than A, and I personally want to achieve a concrete result in this messed up world: Minimizing the number of babies getting sliced up.

Preventing X, Y, and Z is good, and the point in this concrete world is to do good, not feel good about yourself by making some ineffectual, narcissistic, self-congratulatory "statement." It is a futile gesture to "stand on principle" and "vote your conscience" when the candidate (or lack thereof) representing your principles is unelectable. Politics is not about theoretical purity but about practical efficacy: it is about accomplishing something concrete in the world as it actually is. It is about doing good in the here and now, not feeling good about yourself.

If someone won't vote for a candidate that does not perfectly represent his views, then either

A. He is a utopian who fails to understand that politics is about action, not theory, in the world as it is, as opposed to some merely imagined world; or

B. He falsely thinks there is no major difference between the major party candidates.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts