The lesser of 2 evils
- Thread starter WINSTON THE WOLF
- Start date
Frank Ettin
Administrator
I never said that McCain would bring about any change to the Republican Party. It's only that unless McCain is elected either Obama or Hillary would be the next President, and I fear that either one, with their hyper-liberal perspective would be a greater threat to the country and our interests. Not all change is necessarily good change.
That's where we "conservatives" take issue with you McCain supporters. You assume that he will be different than Obama or Hillary. Haven't we seen over the past 10 years how eager McCain is to win favor from Liberals? He will sell out the Conservative base as soon as he takes the oath of office... quicker than you can say "hide your guns".
WINSTON THE WOLF
Moderator
McCain wouldn't bring about change. It would be the same old politics. John "Bush" McCain
"The Republican party is kinda like a junker with a ruptured radiator hose. Picking McCain is like choosing to press ahead knowing that you will wreck the engine in hopes of winning the race. A protest vote is more like conceding defeat in this race, but making the necessary repairs so you can race next time."
+1
+1
Frank Ettin
Administrator
McCain will be different from Obama and Hillary. He will at least be accessible to conservative influence. Your expectations of change are fantasy. It's always been the same old politics, and it will continue to be. It will continue to be because the people that understand that and learn to function in that reality will continue to be successful and thus continue to run things.
You're using the same rhetoric and slogans that were used by the Bull Moose Party when it campaigned Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 and when Ross Perot campaigned in 1992. The protest vote in 1912 gave us Woodrow Wilson, and the protest vote in 1992 gave us Bill Clinton. But in neither case did any great reform or re-invention of the process follow. In each case, it continued to be the same old politics. And your protest votes in 2008 will be have the same effect: we'll get an ultra liberal Dem beholding to ultra liberal interests, and politics as usual.
You're using the same rhetoric and slogans that were used by the Bull Moose Party when it campaigned Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 and when Ross Perot campaigned in 1992. The protest vote in 1912 gave us Woodrow Wilson, and the protest vote in 1992 gave us Bill Clinton. But in neither case did any great reform or re-invention of the process follow. In each case, it continued to be the same old politics. And your protest votes in 2008 will be have the same effect: we'll get an ultra liberal Dem beholding to ultra liberal interests, and politics as usual.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
FireMax,
A very glib and cleaver statement from someone who perpetuates error as a matter of principle. But what does it mean? Has in fact a Soviet era communist ever said anything like that to a reformer? Does that mean it's necessarily not true?
Perhaps you would like to give us some concrete historical examples of instances in which the sort of change you seem to envision was brought about as a result of similarly voting for a non-viable candidate in a Presidential election. That didn't happen as a result of the examples that immediately came to my mind: TR in 1912; Perot in 1992 and Nader in 2000. Perhaps you can come up with some actual examples that may suggest I'm wrong.
A very glib and cleaver statement from someone who perpetuates error as a matter of principle. But what does it mean? Has in fact a Soviet era communist ever said anything like that to a reformer? Does that mean it's necessarily not true?
Perhaps you would like to give us some concrete historical examples of instances in which the sort of change you seem to envision was brought about as a result of similarly voting for a non-viable candidate in a Presidential election. That didn't happen as a result of the examples that immediately came to my mind: TR in 1912; Perot in 1992 and Nader in 2000. Perhaps you can come up with some actual examples that may suggest I'm wrong.
WINSTON THE WOLF
Moderator
you sound like you allready lost the battle and are looking for something to feel good about.
It means exactly what I said, that your comment sounds very much like what a Soviet Era Communist would say to someone who wanted to change the system..... Get used to it, this is the way things are. My contention is that, no, we don't have to get used to it.
You're referring to my misspelling of the word principle.... <sigh>. You continue to bring up the fact that I misspelled the word principle as "principal" about 8 hours ago. That must have been a very important moment to you, I guess. Okay, I get it... I admit to you and to the forum community that I misspelled the word. You are obviously a much better speller than I am. I submit to your superior spelling skills. Obviously, you never misspell words when posting in a forum and you now look down on me because I do. I am ashamed of my mistake. How could I have done it.... I don't know what got into me.... my high school English teacher would be shocked. To make it up to you, I will promise to use spell check more often if you will finally get over it already.
WINSTON THE WOLF
Moderator
FireMax , atleast I know you understand that word and know it's meaning. and I know you stand by your principles
Like Ron Paul
Like Ron Paul
Ya, thanks. As a matter of principle, another person's spelling mistakes are not my principal concern. But everyone is different. Frank Ettin
Administrator
I've been ragging on you about your misspelling because (1) I've enjoyed doing it; and (2) because you made is so easy and indeed invited it by claiming your misspelling of the word was a matter of principle.
As to changing the system, fine. How do you propose to do it? My point was that there is no reason to suppose that writing in Ron Paul, or voting for the Dem in protest or not voting for anyone for President or any of the other approaches discussed in this thread thus far would accomplish that.
If you really believe in changing the system, offer some concrete suggestions as to how to go about it together with some evidence, such as historical examples, of why what you propose might reasonably be expected to accomplish your purpose. Have the sorts of changes you desire ever happened, and if so, how? If those sorts of changes have never happened, what makes you think that they could happen?
And when I speak of things being the way they are, I'm not necessarily speaking about the more superficial attributes of the system -- the parties, the liberal vs. conservative dynamic. I'm speaking about the way groups work and evolve, the interplay of power and influence. You can read Machiavelli and see that the wielding of power and courting of influence and the need for inspirational leadership and the processes by which a leader achieves results in a political framework were in so many ways essentially the same over 600 years ago in the context of that political system as they are today in the context of ours.
Then as now, in any political system, be it a corporation or a democratic republic or a communist state, the dynamics of operating government and the interplay of those in power are messy. It's like that in the executive suites of big corporations (having some experience there myself), the legislatures of a republic or the committee rooms of a communist state. The underlying mechanisms by which results are obtained are similar, because they are a function of the underlying nature of the human.
As Bismark said, "Anyone who likes law or sausages should watch neither being made." And as Gideon J. Tucker said in 1866, "No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session." These statements were made quite some time ago, in different political contexts, and yet they ring true to us today. Has no one tried to fundamentally change things since then?
As to changing the system, fine. How do you propose to do it? My point was that there is no reason to suppose that writing in Ron Paul, or voting for the Dem in protest or not voting for anyone for President or any of the other approaches discussed in this thread thus far would accomplish that.
If you really believe in changing the system, offer some concrete suggestions as to how to go about it together with some evidence, such as historical examples, of why what you propose might reasonably be expected to accomplish your purpose. Have the sorts of changes you desire ever happened, and if so, how? If those sorts of changes have never happened, what makes you think that they could happen?
And when I speak of things being the way they are, I'm not necessarily speaking about the more superficial attributes of the system -- the parties, the liberal vs. conservative dynamic. I'm speaking about the way groups work and evolve, the interplay of power and influence. You can read Machiavelli and see that the wielding of power and courting of influence and the need for inspirational leadership and the processes by which a leader achieves results in a political framework were in so many ways essentially the same over 600 years ago in the context of that political system as they are today in the context of ours.
Then as now, in any political system, be it a corporation or a democratic republic or a communist state, the dynamics of operating government and the interplay of those in power are messy. It's like that in the executive suites of big corporations (having some experience there myself), the legislatures of a republic or the committee rooms of a communist state. The underlying mechanisms by which results are obtained are similar, because they are a function of the underlying nature of the human.
As Bismark said, "Anyone who likes law or sausages should watch neither being made." And as Gideon J. Tucker said in 1866, "No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session." These statements were made quite some time ago, in different political contexts, and yet they ring true to us today. Has no one tried to fundamentally change things since then?