Lesser of two evils argument: how to respond?

[Matt Collins]

A very good friend of mine (who has a degree in pol sci) and is very conservative sent me the following after I told him I wasn't voting for McCain:


"
Should I vote for Obama? A vote for a third party candidate is a noble
jester and probably full of principle but in reality it is a vote for
Obama. I may vote for a third party candidate but I will do it knowing
the liberal socialist will run the country un-opposed for the next 4 to
8 years and that my be enough to permanently convert the country to
socialism. Does Chuck Baldwin have the votes to beat Obama? If not the
info he is providing will certainly provide support for Obama by
injuring McCain. He will win the battle (hurting McCain) and lose the
war (the main war is between socialists and conservatives).

We saw this when Perrot ran and gave the election to Bill Clinton. Bush
was not a very true conservative but we showed him and got Clinton for 8
years. This election is lining up quite similar and the Libertarian
candidate Bob Barr and maybe Chuck Baldwin together are going to be the
Perrot that puts Obama in the Whitehouse.

Hey! Who knows maybe the Dem's will give us all such great benefits we
will be overwhelmed with gratitude and line up for our freebies. They
seem to believe they can promise 1 trillion in new benefits and not
raise taxes (except on the rich) so they must have some magic that we
don't know about. I can't wait; 29 cent gas, free cars, a check for
spending money and housing on demand. Let the good times roll!!!"

[Matt Collins]

How do I respond to this?

[nate895]

Tell him there is this body called the Seante that only needs 40 votes to stop this madness, and if Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin get a large share of the vote, the GOP Senators will be watching to secure their reelection, and they'd know that if they stood on conservative values, they'd have another 6 years to get cozy in the Senate. I think we can get 40 votes in the US Senate to stop this madness if it came down to it.

[SLSteven]

If you are in a state where the election is clearly going to go to one of the 2 party candidates, you should definitely vote for Barr or Baldwin. The dilemma to let your vote "count" or vote for your principles is really only present if you happen to be in one of the battleground states.

[speciallyblend]

better then mccain, thats what i would say;) tell him the republican party should of thought of that before they silenced us, tell him to enjoy the bed they made, mccains campaign is over..

[yongrel]

Voting for the lesser of two evils only encourages more evil.

There have been several interesting scholarly articles written about the game theory implications of choosing the lesser of two evils. Reader's Digest Version: Voting for the lesser of two evils produces more evil.

[Ninja Homer]

How do I respond to this?

Tell him his pol sci degree was a waste of time. The word is "gesture," not "jester."

McCain is promising 1 trillion in benefits as well, except that goes to the military industrial complex to continue the war.

It's not even close to time for, "who are you going to vote for" yet. Right now, if you are politically active, it's about looking at ALL the candidates, deciding who you would like to support, and working to get them as high as possible in the polls by November so they can be in the presidential debates.

Right now, it looks like Barr has a chance at making it into the debates. If he makes it, it is going to completely change the face of this election.

It's already very obvious that Obama has more support than McCain, Barr, and Baldwin combined. The only way Obama could ever be taken down is for somebody like Barr or Baldwin to get in debates with him and get some good media attention.

McCain doesn't stand a chance, no matter what happens. Just wait until he gets hit with $30 million+ of attack ads. So far, he's had it pretty easy.

[nate895]

Who should I vote for?
Satan, with a 49% chance of winning, but is evil;
Demon, with a 49% chance of winning, and is less evil than Satan;
or Angel, with a 2% chance of winning, and is pure good.

I think I know which one I'm going with. Do you?

[SLSteven]

I personally feel better voting for someone I truly support. Voting for Ron Paul has been a great feeling!

[Matt Collins]

The dilemma to let your vote "count" or vote for your principles is really only present if you happen to be in one of the battleground states.He is in Florida. :rolleyes:

[SLSteven]

He is in Florida. :rolleyes:

Uh Oh. You have a dilemma!

[speciallyblend]

He is in Florida. :rolleyes:

call ice and get him deported to cuba ,one less mccain vote;) joking well maybe;)

[SLSteven]

Well, the chance of the election in FL coming down to one vote is astronomically small. So, he should vote his conscience.

[Staupostek]

Just remember, voting for the lesser of two evils still means you are voting for evil.

[synapz]

"I'd rather vote for someone I want, and lose, than someone I don't like, and win."

[haigh]

Per

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

McCain's got a strong upper hand in Florida he should go with his conscientious.

On top of that, handing the GOP a loss this next election, may be the makings of a better GOP in 2012.

[pinkmandy]

Voting for the lesser of two evils only encourages more evil.

There have been several interesting scholarly articles written about the game theory implications of choosing the lesser of two evils. Reader's Digest Version: Voting for the lesser of two evils produces more evil.

I'm quoting Yongrel. First to prove that he does add value to conversations when he wants to and second...because he's dead on right. How can people (voters) expect their politicians to start representing them when we condone what they do by voting for them? That's why they are the way they are. Instead of holding them accountable we vote for them! Where's the incentive for a candidate to uphold values when the candidate knows, if he gets the nomination, that he'll get the vote regardless?

Here's another reason:
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin443.htm

[1000-points-of-fright]

Who knows what the situation will be in November. Any one of the candidates may very well blow it big time at some point before that.

Operating on what we know at this moment, Obama will win. So we have two options:

Obama wins because....

1) McCain loses by a slight margin and the GOP continues to think they are on the right path because they came oh so close to beating a very popular candidate.

2) McCain gets his ass handed to him because lots of conservatives voted for Barr and Baldwin. He loses so badly that the GOP sits up, takes notice, and maybe even rethinks the direction they've been heading.

Either way, Obama wins. You just have to decide which GOP you want fighting against him for the next four years.

[Michael Landon]

Just tell him that the odds of your 1 vote giving the election to Obama are EXTREMELY slim, you probably have a better chance of winning the lottery than helping Obama win, or in other words, helping McCain lose. Then tell him at least you can go to sleep at night knowing that you didn't abandon your principals and morals voting for the lesser of two liberals... err... evils. :)

- ML

[Conza88]

Video I'm working on addresses this point.

[pepperpete1]

I keep telling people to not vote for any evil. Ron Paul is still in the running and it is not over til the fat lady sings and even if he does not get the nomination.........I WILL WRITE IN........
Dr. Ron Paul, U S President (whether he is registered or not)

[MMolloy]

McCain will pull the rug out from beneath any organized resistance within the Republican Party to his brand of Big Government.

If he's a republican and knows and respects former Rep Bob Dornan or Sen Bob Smith... get him to watch the 1st video on http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/

We have traveled farther down the wrong path with a Republican president and Congress than we would have if we had experienced gridlock with a Democratic president and a Republican majority in the House and the Senate.

Does your friend believe Bush has been a disaster? or not so bad? or better than Kerry? Your approach will depend on the answer to that question as well.

[James Madison]

What I always tell people is as long as we continue to settle for the lesser of two evils the criminals will keep on putting out two controlled candidates year after year. But if enough of us say we're not gonna stand for it anymore we can put pressure on the parties to run decent candidates.

[qh4dotcom]

Tell him...unlike a lot of other people, my conscience will haunt me if the candidate I vote for winds up being a worse president than Bush. My integrity is more important than electability.

Also it's not a vote for Obama because if third party candidates weren't running, I would stay at home and not vote at all.

[fr33domfightr]

Who knows what the situation will be in November. Any one of the candidates may very well blow it big time at some point before that.

Operating on what we know at this moment, Obama will win. So we have two options:

Obama wins because....

1) McCain loses by a slight margin and the GOP continues to think they are on the right path because they came oh so close to beating a very popular candidate.

2) McCain gets his ass handed to him because lots of conservatives voted for Barr and Baldwin. He loses so badly that the GOP sits up, takes notice, and maybe even rethinks the direction they've been heading.

Either way, Obama wins. You just have to decide which GOP you want fighting against him for the next four years.



I think 1000-points really has the dynamics straight!

Obama will probably win this election if he doesn't make any big mistakes by November.

When the votes are tallied and the GOP sees McCain could have won with the conservative base, that abandoned him for Barr/Baldwin/Paul (certified write-in), they will see the error of their ways. In subsequent elections you'll see a shift in toward the conservative direction, from Representatives, Senators, and Presidential candidates.

Should McCain only lose by just a little bit, the GOP will think they haven't moved ENOUGH to the left, and will move further in that direction.

That's the reason NOT to vote for McCain, and to encourage all conservatives and freedom loving individuals to take a stand and show the establishment enough is enough. It's time to vote for freedom and Liberty, it's time to vote for a third party!!


FF

P.S. Due to the high numbers of Democrats who will probably be voting, this will require huge voter registration drives. We need to get huge numbers who believe in the freedom movement, and we need to make sure they vote for a conservative candidate. This will ensure a change of direction in Washington D.C.

[nodope0695]

Plain and simple: I WILL NOT VOTE FOR EVIL, whether its the lesser or not.

The lesser of two evils is still evil. Whether its murder or petty theft, its still SIN. You're either evil or you're not evil.

People ask me, "So since RP is not the nominee, who are you going to vote for? You've got to vote for somebody."

My reply is always, "I'll vote for nobody before I opt for the lesser of two evils. I'll write RP in. I'll abstain."

The saddest fact about 99% of voters is that they have NO concept of voting their conscience. If their man/woman doesn't win the primaries, doesn't get the press, doesn't sound/look good enough, then they beleive they've got to change their choice and vote the "lesser of two evils." That is why we're in the shitty predicament we're in now. Nobody thinks for themselves anymore...nobody take responsibilty for their government....PEOPLE ARE SHEEPLE.

[mt4rp]

"We saw this when Perrot ran and gave the election to Bill Clinton"
I don't buy this arguement, Most of the Perrot voters I knew were from union families who would have voted for Clinton.....
In my county the count was
clinton 21K
bush sr. 19k
Ross Perrott 17k
I think the MSM & Both Parties used this tactic to keep a 3rd party from becoming a contender

[ProBlue33]

Really what can America afford less.

Give me a choice hmmm.

Pull out of Iraq and get less expensive health care.

VS

Invade Iran and get drafted.

Now tell me which is more evil?

This country really can't afford 4 years of McCain's foolish dementia

[I Am Weasel]

I keep telling people to not vote for any evil. Ron Paul is still in the running and it is not over til the fat lady sings and even if he does not get the nomination.........I WILL WRITE IN........
Dr. Ron Paul, U S President (whether he is registered or not)

damn.... had to get to the 3rd page of this thread on the RON PAUL FORUMS to find RON PAULS name all the while discussing who us as "RON PAUL supporters" should vote for.

You all make me wanna puke. except you pepperpete...

[fr33domfightr]

I would check with your States' elections laws regarding Write-In candidates. If Ron Paul isn't a certified "write-in" candidate and you write him in, your vote may be trashed. It's good you didn't vote for the lesser of the 2 evils, but it won't count for freedom either!!

If your vote gets trashed, your vote won't be counted in the Freedom Movement.

Wouldn't it be better to have Ron Paul be a valid write-in candidate, vote for him, and be counted? Making sure the establishement can see your vote?


FF

[AJ Antimony]

The whole point of democracy is to vote for the most qualified candidate--the one who will most follow the Constitution. If one doesn't vote like this, then one doesn't deserve a democracy.

[gilliganscorner]

Voting for the lessor of two evils is voting for the evils of two lessors. It is still advocating evil.

I voted this way once. Once.

I felt so damned dirty about it after. I betrayed my then future kids by not taking a stand and vote on principle. I teach them core values that make people more than simple house pets: truth, freedom, reason, justice, sound money, and limited government.

How can we EVER get out of the grasp of evil if we approach voting this way? How can the good prevail if we have this mindset? It is the ever downward spiral to doom as every election cycle we vote for the lessor of two evils, as it begets more evil. We would become a society of cannibals. And a society of cannibals is doomed to destruction.

Hopefully, in the future, we can reduce State size and power to an absolute barebones minimum.

Right now, all we accomplish through the voting system is decide which group of thugs steal from us via taxation and inflation - but they all steal. Think about it. I don't have the right to steal from you. You don't have the right to steal from me. We can pretty much agree that we all do not want to live in a society where it is OK to steal from each other.

Then how do we delegate that right to steal from each other to a third party (the State)? This is exactly what we accomplish via the voting system. The State needs you to prop up the facade of democracy by voting. Imagine if an election was held and 0% of the population turned out to vote? What would the implications be? That all candidates were too evil to vote for? That would be goodness..

Ron Paul's message is but a step (a huge one) in the right direction. If I was able to vote (I am Canadian) I would write him in or abstain. And no, there is no Canadian worthy of my vote at the moment. Probably means I'll have to run so I can work my self out of a job ;)

Sorry folks about going off on a tangent. Need. More. Coffee. :cool:

[acptulsa]

Voting for the lesser of two evils only encourages more evil.

There have been several interesting scholarly articles written about the game theory implications of choosing the lesser of two evils. Reader's Digest Version: Voting for the lesser of two evils produces more evil.

It may only promote a little more evil instead of a lot more evil (unless you're a Bush voter and couldn't see evil if it bit your ass), but it's still the wrong damned direction and if we don't want the future to be hell we should turn around...

[Truth Warrior]

Abstain From Beans

By Robert LeFevre — (1911 - 1986)

In ancient Athens, those who admired the Stoic philosophy of individualism took as their motto: "Abstain from Beans." The phrase had a precise reference. It meant: don't vote.

Balloting in Athens occurred by dropping various colored beans into a receptacle.

To vote is to express a preference. There is nothing implicitly evil in choosing. All of us in the ordinary course of our daily lives vote for or against dozens of products and services. When we vote for (buy) any good or service, it follows that by salutary neglect we vote against the goods or services we do not choose to buy. The great merit of market place choosing is that no one is bound by any other persons selection. I may choose Brand X. But this cannot prevent you from choosing Brand Y.

When we place voting into the framework of politics, however, a major change occurs. When we express a preference politically, we do so precisely because we intend to bind others to our will. Political voting is the legal method we have adopted and extolled for obtaining monopolies of power. Political voting is nothing more than the assumption that might makes right. There is a presumption that any decision wanted by the majority of those expressing a preference must be desirable, and the inference even goes so far as to presume that anyone who differs from a majority view is wrong or possibly immoral.

But history shows repeatedly the madness of crowds and the irrationality of majorities. The only conceivable merit relating to majority rule lies in the fact that if we obtain monopoly decisions by this process, we will coerce fewer persons than if we permit the minority to coerce the majority. But implicit in all political voting is the necessity to coerce some so that all are controlled. The direction taken by the control is academic. Control as a monopoly in the hands of the state is basic.

In times such as these, it is incumbent upon free men to reexamine their most cherished, long-established beliefs. There is only one truly moral position for an honest person to take. He must refrain from coercing his fellows. This means that he should refuse to participate in the process by means of which some men obtain power over others. If you value your right to life, liberty, and property, then clearly there is every reason to refrain from participating in a process that is calculated to remove the life, liberty, or property from any other person.

Voting is the method for obtaining legal power to coerce others.

http://www.voluntaryist.com/lefevre/beans.php

[gilliganscorner]

Abstain From Beans

By Robert LeFevre — (1911 - 1986)

In ancient Athens, those who admired the Stoic philosophy of individualism took as their motto: "Abstain from Beans." The phrase had a precise reference. It meant: don't vote.

Balloting in Athens occurred by dropping various colored beans into a receptacle.

To vote is to express a preference. There is nothing implicitly evil in choosing. All of us in the ordinary course of our daily lives vote for or against dozens of products and services. When we vote for (buy) any good or service, it follows that by salutary neglect we vote against the goods or services we do not choose to buy. The great merit of market place choosing is that no one is bound by any other persons selection. I may choose Brand X. But this cannot prevent you from choosing Brand Y.

When we place voting into the framework of politics, however, a major change occurs. When we express a preference politically, we do so precisely because we intend to bind others to our will. Political voting is the legal method we have adopted and extolled for obtaining monopolies of power. Political voting is nothing more than the assumption that might makes right. There is a presumption that any decision wanted by the majority of those expressing a preference must be desirable, and the inference even goes so far as to presume that anyone who differs from a majority view is wrong or possibly immoral.

But history shows repeatedly the madness of crowds and the irrationality of majorities. The only conceivable merit relating to majority rule lies in the fact that if we obtain monopoly decisions by this process, we will coerce fewer persons than if we permit the minority to coerce the majority. But implicit in all political voting is the necessity to coerce some so that all are controlled. The direction taken by the control is academic. Control as a monopoly in the hands of the state is basic.

In times such as these, it is incumbent upon free men to reexamine their most cherished, long-established beliefs. There is only one truly moral position for an honest person to take. He must refrain from coercing his fellows. This means that he should refuse to participate in the process by means of which some men obtain power over others. If you value your right to life, liberty, and property, then clearly there is every reason to refrain from participating in a process that is calculated to remove the life, liberty, or property from any other person.

Voting is the method for obtaining legal power to coerce others.

http://www.voluntaryist.com/lefevre/beans.php

Wow. Great post! It is exactly correct. Ron Paul's message certainly embraces this. It would be a reversal of generations of socialist ideology that could not be undone in a 1 term presidency. It is a lifelong struggle and requires educated (not in government indoctrination camps we call "public education"), engaged, vigilant citizens to recognize when this beast rears it's head and crush its skull.

Truth Warrior? Ever heard of "agorism"?

[Kade]

How do I respond to this?

It's nonsense.

[Truth Warrior]

Wow. Great post! It is exactly correct. Ron Paul's message certainly embraces this. It would be a reversal of generations of socialist ideology that could not be undone in a 1 term presidency. It is a lifelong struggle and requires educated (not in government indoctrination camps we call "public education"), engaged, vigilant citizens to recognize when this beast rears it's head and crush its skull.

Truth Warrior? Ever heard of "agorism"?

Thanks! I'm really pleased that you enjoyed the article. The author was my original libertarian mentor, long ago.

Agorism? Surprisingly no, I had not heard of it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. :D

http://www.reference.com/search?r=13&q=Agorism ;)

[amy31416]

It's nonsense.

I haven't followed this entire thread, but I'm curious--will your vote for Obama (I'm assuming that's who you plan to vote for) be a lesser of two evils vote, or will it be a vote of confidence?

[acptulsa]

I haven't followed this entire thread, but I'm curious--will your vote for Obama (I'm assuming that's who you plan to vote for) be a lesser of two evils vote, or will it be a vote of confidence?

A vote of confidence in a confidence man. I've got no hope that this will lead to change...

[Truth Warrior]

A vote of confidence in a confidence man. I've got no hope that this will lead to change... Actually it will ...... but we sure WON'T like it. ;)

[gilliganscorner]

Thanks! I'm really pleased that you enjoyed the article. The author was my original libertarian mentor, long ago.

Agorism? Surprisingly no, I had not heard of it? Thanks for bringing it to my attention. :D

http://www.reference.com/search?r=13&q=Agorism ;)

It is probably one of the best articles I have read in a while! For the last 10 minutes I have been reading about RL. Very interesting....from an initial pass through, his thoughts are resonating with mine. I liked this quote:


"An anarchist is anyone who believes in less government than you do."

Agorism is essentially this:

We know that the State steals from us via taxation and inflation. Protesting/Voting won't change a damn thing (other than RP of course - but he is a start) For example:

In 1982, Reagan’s Secretary of State Alexander Haig made a telling statement. Hundreds of thousands of people had marched in New York City, protesting the administration’s Latin American foreign policies. When asked what he thought about the huge protest, Haig stated, “Let them protest all they want, as long as they pay their taxes.”

Haig defined the key.

Tax protesting/resistance has a 0 percent chance of success. The State will deploy violence with unmatchable firepower (I cite the case of Ed Brown) against you and your families and friends.

Agorism is holding on to your wealth by trading with trustworthy network of partners (prevent the State from stealing from you via taxes) and use sound money (prevent the State from stealing via inflation).

If we can set up a decentralized (it would have to be to avoid record seizure by the State a la Liberty dollar) network of people that are willing to trade part-time with others, we can avoid taxes and inflation altogether, cashing out sound money for fiat currency when we need to pay property tax or other unavoidable (yet) taxes. We would siphon off wealth from the State, rather than let the State siphon it off from us.

It would be like a virtual "Galt's Gulch" (if you have read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand you will know exactly what I mean), except we don't have to physically move. We can hide from the bad guys (the State) in plain sight!

Up here in Canada, we have a State sponsored terrorist agency called FINTRAC. They are Canada's "financial intelligence" agency that are warning our federal terrorists about "e-gold" websites. Of course they are using that tired old excuse that these sites are havens for money laundering by criminals and terrorists, but the reality is that they are warning that people are starting to trade in these networks to avoid the taxation system, thus holding onto at least 40% of their wealth (as they don't report it for taxation, regulation, and/or confiscation).


You can read my article on this here (http://gilliganscorner.wordpress.com/2008/05/26/fintrac-declares-war-on-free-trade/).

Let me know what you think...

Cheers!

[Kade]

I haven't followed this entire thread, but I'm curious--will your vote for Obama (I'm assuming that's who you plan to vote for) be a lesser of two evils vote, or will it be a vote of confidence?

Choices:

1. Bob Barr.
No. I know him. I know him personally, I lived in his district and the Newt's growing up. I despise the man.
2. John McCain.
Absolutely not. Never. I hate that we blindly accept bailout for corporations, and have the nerve to say that bailing out homeowners is socialism. I hate the growing theocracy, and I DESPISE "Constructionist" judges, they are a mockery of law theory and the foundation of this country.
3. Chuck Baldwin.
Theocrat. No way.
4. Ron Paul.
Yes. If he Runs.
5. Barack Obama.
Liberal. Socialist Democrat. If I have to pay a few more dollars out of my check (many of you, I imagine, will not), and swing the control of the government over to a less dangerous faction to see a better economy, a better foreign policy, and disposal of some of the more insane executive privileges I have ever heard of, then yes, I'll do it.
6. Cynthia McKinney
No.
7. Ralph Nader
No.
8. Brian Moore
No
9. Gene Amondson
No
10. Roger Calero
No


Did I miss anyone?

[gilliganscorner]

The whole point of democracy is to vote for the most qualified candidate--the one who will most follow the Constitution. If one doesn't vote like this, then one doesn't deserve a democracy.

Unfortunately, 90% of the voters look like this:

http://gilliganscorner.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/n575942039_452871_5652.jpg?w=488&h=435

Democracy as it stands today is a utter failure.

[acptulsa]

Democracy as it stands today is a utter failure.

Easy now. Our republic is the most powerful nation on earth. I'm not giving the credit to government, I'm just disputing that the failure is "utter". Sick? Yes. Failing? Probably. Off course? Definitely. An utter failure?

As compared to...?

Nonetheless, it would be nice to get the republic back on course. That's why I'm here trying to help with that tiller.

[acroso]

I F' hate the two candidates.

Is that enough of an argument?

[YoungPatriot]

I would check with your States' elections laws regarding Write-In candidates. If Ron Paul isn't a certified "write-in" candidate and you write him in, your vote may be trashed. It's good you didn't vote for the lesser of the 2 evils, but it won't count for freedom either!!

If your vote gets trashed, your vote won't be counted in the Freedom Movement.

Wouldn't it be better to have Ron Paul be a valid write-in candidate, vote for him, and be counted? Making sure the establishement can see your vote?


FF

Good idea. I actually didnt know that there were certified "write-in" candidates. I will check though... Also, if you are in a county or district that uses Diebold you're fucked and you cant write in anyways. Luckily I still have paper so I can write in. Anyways, Ill never vote for Obama or McCain. They are both horrible choices. I cant support what they stand for as an American. Their voting records are both so terrible as well.

[acptulsa]

I F' hate the two candidates.

Is that enough of an argument?

For what it's worth, it works for me!

[Truth Warrior]

Demobcrazy! :D :rolleyes:

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau

;)

[SLSteven]

Demobcrazy! :D :rolleyes:

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau

;)

Good quote!

[Truth Warrior]

Good quote! Thanks! I've been inspired, encouraged and fortified by it, more than twice. :)

[crazyfacedjenkins]

How do I respond to this?

That shit was hysterical. Clinton is just a continuation of Bush, who is a continuation of Regan, etc. They all did they same shit and ran this country into the ground. Look at this place, it's falling apart because of all these assholes. Tell him we are fucked and he may as well vote for the EVILER of two evils.

[Truth Warrior]

And may the BEST megalomaniac sociopath win .......... AGAIN! :D

[gilliganscorner]

That shit was hysterical. Clinton is just a continuation of Bush, who is a continuation of Regan, etc. They all did they same shit and ran this country into the ground. Look at this place, it's falling apart because of all these assholes. Tell him we are fucked and he may as well vote for the EVILER of two evils.

Maybe that is what we should be doing ARP (After Ron Paul). If RP does not become the nominee, we should hope for the WORST possible candidate to be elected. Would you want the economy to tank quickly or tank slowly?

I realize that I might be flamed out for this, but shouldn't we be focusing on creating an agorist network of partners, trading part time outside of the taxation system, and using sound money with each other? I.e. Create a true free market? If we don't have RP, isn't voting pointless? I'll bet you that if we DID have a 0% turnout at the polls, that would send the statists scurrying in fear...well, assuming that MSM reported it. They probably would make up numbers rather than report a 0% turnout.

That way, when things DO fall over, we will still have our network. The trick is in "the how" to get started.

The network would have to be decentralized so that the bad guys can't seize records and waterboard all the members. If they used violence against one or two of the members, it must not reveal the other members...

I would like to see a P2P architecture to facilitate trading "credits" similar to the way BitTorrent/Azeureus works. I am even good with "electronic money" as long as:

a) Banks can't create it out of thin air
b) Government can't print it.
c) Obviously, it can't be counterfieted and players in the market would trust it.
d) The bad guys can't spy on it.

In the physical world, silver and especially gold fit that mold. In the digital world, we might use tokens (http://osaka.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/tcmay.htm) that have some sort of unbreakable cryptography applied to it.

Crazy ramblings? Or the start of an idea? Not sure yet. Thought I would throw it out there...

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Maybe that is what we should be doing ARP (After Ron Paul). If RP does not become the nominee, we should hope for the WORST possible candidate to be elected. Would you want the economy to tank quickly or tank slowly?

I realize that I might be flamed out for this, but shouldn't we be focusing on creating an agorist network of partners, trading part time outside of the taxation system, and using sound money with each other? I.e. Create a true free market? If we don't have RP, isn't voting pointless? I'll bet you that if we DID have a 0% turnout at the polls, that would send the statists scurrying in fear...well, assuming that MSM reported it. They probably would make up numbers rather than report a 0% turnout.

That way, when things DO fall over, we will still have our network. The trick is in "the how" to get started.

The network would have to be decentralized so that the bad guys can't seize records and waterboard all the members.

I would like to see a P2P architecture to facilitate trading "credits" similar to the way BitTorrent/Azeureus works. I am even good with "electronic money" as long as:

a) Banks can't create it out of thin air
b) Government can't print it.
c) Obviously, it can't be counterfieted and players in the market would trust it.

In the physical world, silver and especially gold fit that mold. In the digital world, we might use tokens (http://osaka.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/tcmay.htm) that have some sort of unbreakable cryptography applied to it.

Crazy ramblings? Or the start of an idea? Not sure yet. Thought I would throw it out there...

Sounds incredible interesting. I'd like to see more debate on P2P credits.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Sounds incredible interesting. I'd like to see more debate on P2P credits.

http://www.cooperationcommons.com/cooperationcommons/blog/samuelrose/142-p2p-international-currency-exchange

[Matt Collins]

I'm getting ready to draft my letter on this subject... any other thoughts?

[Tarzan]

I'm getting ready to draft my letter on this subject... any other thoughts?

Tell him... if he is trying to pick a winner go to the horse track... or dog track since it is florida.
If he is interested in "hiring" a president to pick the best candidate, regardless of their chance of winning. Until we can all make that jump (and vote for someone truly qualified and worthy of the position) we will continue to end up with the string of losers we continue to put in the white house... (and congress).

Since he is in Florida... tell him to vote for McCain or BO... but to only push lightly and be sure to leave a hanging chad.

Or, tell him to vote for Barr or Baldwin... then he can wear a shirt for the next four (or eight) years saying "don't blame me... I voted for some other guy".

[matterweisen]

voting for the lesser of two evils, is still voting for evil. if you dont vote for who you think should be president (whether or not they have a chance), you dont deserve to vote.

[MikeStanart]

I will be writing in Paul, or leaving "President" BLANK ( i'm contemplating Bob Barr)

I'm kind of hesitant on voting 3rd party, because I do not want to encourage Liberty-minded people to join another party instead of Changing the Republican Party!!!

That being said; I will probably leave "President" BLANK...and vote for whoever is the best candidates for the rest.

[Kalifornia]

Just tell him he is an idiot, and move on with your life.

[dannno]

Look. There is NO REASON to use the "strategy method" in the voting booth. One vote will NEVER tip the scales!! That is the ONLY reason a strategy vote is worth a strategy vote, otherwise it's just a wasted vote!! Always vote for the best person. Period.

A strategy vote is only potentially useful if there are 10 or 20 people voting!!

[apropos]

Pretty simple response is: why would you a) vote for someone who doesn't represent you accurately and therefore won't work for what you want and b) vote for someone you never believed in in the first place?

[rich34]

Hell with that logic. You can use the same logic and say that because of Ralph Nader we got bozo the clown to be our president over the last 8 years.

I'm registered republican now because of Dr. Paul, but I can't hardly stomach the neocon type republicans. They're the biggest hypocrits on earth. They had no problem with Nader and Buchannan (2000 election) siphoning votes away from Gore/Kerry which gave the election to the most corrupt president in American history (with the possible exception of Lyndon Johnson) so what's the problem now? I don't like Obama either and will most likely vote for Baldwin, but the republican party deserves whatever hell they get!

They rejected the most honest and principled politican over the last 100 years and used dirty tricks and manuvers to silence Ron Paul and now they want us to vote for McCain because he's the lesser of two evils? HELL WITH EM!

[Misesian]

Well, the chance of the election in FL coming down to one vote is astronomically small. So, he should vote his conscience.

Yes, I read this from Lew Rockwell saying that the chances of your vote determining the outcome of the election are less then your chances of dieing in a car accident on the way to the poll. You can see this in ANY type of election. Our local Republican Executive Committee had a special election to replace the chair who was resigning and the outcome was determined by 5 votes. Even if it was determined by 2 votes MY single vote would not have made once difference. People will usually still try to fight this argument but they're not understanding that my one vote wouldn't make the difference so whynot vote for hte BEST candidate.

Also tell them that a vote is supposed to be an endorsement of principles, not a betting slip. Point out McCain's atrocious record on increasing the size of government and just let his conscience work against him by saying if he wants those things, and a crippled GOP that will be led by this type of president, then certainly vote for McCain.

At least with Obama as president, the dems will get all of the blame and with the help of the R3volution we can restore true Old Right conservatism amongst the Republicans to stand up to the New New Dealings of Obama.

[armstrong]

depends if we survive 4 years of obama hmmm I wonder how much fuel will cost and food will cost in 2012

[Truth Warrior]

Gee, shit.008 is a whole lot better than shit.009, I'll vote for him! Go shit.008! You're my guy! YAY!!! :rolleyes:

[qh4dotcom]

Here's a strong argument against the lesser of two evils concept

************************************************** ***

My integrity is more important than electability...I refuse to sell my soul to the two party system (Obama/Democrats, and McCain/Republicans) that has caused so many problems to the country. Unlike millions of people, my conscience will actually haunt me for the next 4 years if I vote for the two party system because the next president is just about guaranteed to be as bad if not even worse than Bush. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results...so if you keep voting for the two party system don't expect different results....you'll keep getting more of the same. As Jay Leno once said...you get the government you deserve.

I am doing the right thing and voting for a third party candidate.

[literatim]

http://xs128.xs.to/xs128/08251/cthulhu-elections898.gif

[libertarian4321]

How do I respond to this?

Both McWar and Obama will fight for massive new expenditures- whether they go with "tax and spend" or "borrow and spend" is pretty irrelevant.

Obama will waste our tax money in the USA- social programs, infrastructure, health care.

McCain will waste our tax money in Iraq (and probably Iran).

I fail to see how "wasting our money in Iraq" is "less evil" than wasting the same money in the USA.

If my money is going to be wasted, better to spend it on a bridge in the USA (Obama) than a bridge in Iraq (McWar).

Though, obviously, both are bad choices...

Full disclosure: I'm a Republican, and a fiscal conservative, but I'd rather staple my family jewels to my leg than vote for an utter jackass like John McCain. I do NOT want "FOUR MORE YEARS!" of the Bush Presidency...

[pinkmandy]

There is no lesser evil. When you cast a vote for a "lesser" evil, you are condoning that evil. You are giving politicians permission to screw you over. Next election- what do you get? More evil...why? BECAUSE THEY KNOW YOU'LL STILL VOTE FOR IT. It just keeps getting worse. The GOP has worked its way up to the liberal John McCain. What are the repubs going to do about it? VOTE FOR HIM! How in the world does that help the party? It doesn't! It just morphs it into something new and NOT conservative.

If this cycle were to continue (w/out our movement) what would the GOP put forth next time? Scary to think about, isn't it?

[Matt Collins]

Abstain From Beans
Sorry, I'm a libertarian not an anarchist. Some minimal government is necessary so long that it's controlled, restrained, and limited.

Besides, until you can get the states to convene a Constitutional convention voting is the way this country will continue to operate. You can be a part of the process or you can sit out and let others decide for you; your choice.

[Matt Collins]

5. Barack Obama.
Liberal. Socialist Democrat. If I have to pay a few more dollars out of my check (many of you, I imagine, will not), and swing the control of the government over to a less dangerous faction to see a better economy, a better foreign policy, and disposal of some of the more insane executive privileges I have ever heard of, then yes, I'll do it.


I don't think you understand... In fact if you support Ron Paul and would ever consider voting for Obama then you DON'T get the entire R3voLution. :rolleyes:


Let me give you the quick version.... socialism/communism that we would get from Obama and fascism/socialism that we would get from McCain ARE BOTH AUTHORITARIAN. Communism and fascism are both big government.

Obama is going to screw us worse than McCain will but the point is that BOTH will screw us. I am voting for someone who WON'T screw us.

[Matt Collins]

Crazy ramblings? Or the start of an idea? Not sure yet. Thought I would throw it out there...Michael Badnarik has contemplated this idea and supposedly uses a system such as this.

See this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8577731528746978991&q=michael+badnarik+constitution+class+&ei=cZhYSNbYF5SGrQKRxvjgDg

[Truth Warrior]

Sorry, I'm a libertarian not an anarchist. Some minimal government is necessary so long that it's controlled, restrained, and limited.

Besides, until you can get the states to convene a Constitutional convention voting is the way this country will continue to operate. You can be a part of the process or you can sit out and let others decide for you; your choice.

Sound more like a statist than a libertarian. :rolleyes: Maybe you meant Libertarian ( statist ).

[Kade]

I don't think you understand... In fact if you support Ron Paul and would ever consider voting for Obama then you DON'T get the entire R3voLution. :rolleyes:


Let me give you the quick version.... socialism/communism that we would get from Obama and fascism/socialism that we would get from McCain ARE BOTH AUTHORITARIAN. Communism and fascism are both big government.

Obama is going to screw us worse than McCain will but the point is that BOTH will screw us. I am voting for someone who WON'T screw us.

No, sir, you don't understand.

I could give a rat's ass about the privacy rights and ownership of a corporation. I care about civil liberties, and I was long in this movement before many of you lame excuses for revolutionaries had the ball sacks to criticize my idea of freedom.

To shame with your relentless and pathetically overused critiqued. If I never "got" the revolution, then the hundreds of people I brought to it, also don't "get it".

You wonder why you lost the hacker's support. You get herd individualists. What we have left here is people like you, morons who insult others by saying they aren't "with the program".

The only movement I understand is freedom. And I know when it's threatened in my life, and by my very essence, McCain represents everything I stand against.

[Elwar]

The arguments I've used throughout the years:

"I'd rather be pro-something this year, voting against something is never good."

The old stand by: "Voting for the lesser of two evils means you end up with....evil!"

"Who says I'd vote for McCain?"

"Your one vote won't count unless you go to work with a long black robe. That was proven in the 2000 election."

"I'm a bit selfish, I prefer my vote to have a bigger impact. Imagine you had a dollar that you had to give to someone. You had your choices of Bill Gates, Donald Trump and a single mom. If you gave your one dollar adding to the millions that Gates and Trump get they wouldn't care or notice and it wouldn't mean much at all. But if you give it to that single mom it would have the biggest impact of all of the choices. Your single vote has a bigger impact when voting for someone who doesn't have millions of votes already."

Then there's always..."We have Diebold machines...'nuff said"

[Matt Collins]

Sound more like a statist than a libertarian. :rolleyes: Maybe you meant Libertarian ( statist ).How exactly am I a statist? :confused:

[Matt Collins]

The only movement I understand is freedom.Then why would you vote for Obama? He is going to take away freedom just the same, if not more, than McCain.


And I know when it's threatened in my life, and by my very essence, McCain represents everything I stand against.Same here. And Obama is really not all that different than McCain.

[Truth Warrior]

How exactly am I a statist? :confused:

Easy one, you vote for the state! ;)

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/nolanchartmine.jpg

Maybe you can tell me. Why does Ron strongly ENDORSE LewRockwell.com? ( My last sig quote )

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/lewrock0305a.gif


Thanks! :)

[Todd]

How exactly am I a statist? :confused:

Your not a statist...

Even Libertarians and classic conservatism believes that some government is necessary. It's just that it should only be as little as possible.
The little diamond diagrams that people use to pinpoint where they are on the political spectrum are cute and all with boxing in different polticial ideology and they make great power point slides....but when it comes to collectivism and individual liberty anyone who has studied these issues knows it tends to more linear with one extreme or the other.

Any vote for Obama and McCain is a vote for further, unhealthy levels of collectivism. Period.

[Matt Collins]

Easy one, you vote for the state!When did I vote for the State? I am against statism, but I am not for anarchy. That happy medium is called libertarianism.

[CUnknown]

I think the best way to respond to him is to appeal to the issues that are important to him. He seems to care about fiscal responsibility -- so, ask him, who was more irresponsible, W or Clinton? Remember that Clinton actually balanced the budget for a brief shining moment. Bush is giving us record deficits, each new year smashing the previous record set the year before.

If he thinks that McCain will start bringing us back towards balanced budgets, he's crazy. McCain is committed to American Empire, which costs at least as much as the social programs the Dems want. Both parties are committed to massive deficit spending, the only question put to the voters is, "How you you want your crushing, country-destroying debt served to you?" The Dems will serve it with a smile to the mothers and children and elderly, as well as giving fat cash to Wall Street. The Reps will take a serious approach, gripping their M-16s and saying the deficit is necessary to protect us, while they shovel money at Haliburton and Blackwater.

Neither party gives you the option of "Hey..um.. I don't really want my country to be destroyed.."

Seriously.. if his main issue is fiscal responsibility, this is an easy one. Obama and McCain are equally irresponsible.

But, if he believes this crap about terrorism, that the war in Iraq is necessary to protect us, then it is more difficult.

[FireofLiberty]

"If you were in prison and faced a 50% chance of death by lethal injection, a 45% chance of the electric chair, and had a 5% chance of escape, would you vote for lethal injection because it was the most likely outcome, or would you try for escape? Voting Libertarian is our only chance for political survival. Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil." - Michael Badnarik

[rancher89]

I keep telling people to not vote for any evil. Ron Paul is still in the running and it is not over til the fat lady sings and even if he does not get the nomination.........I WILL WRITE IN........
Dr. Ron Paul, U S President (whether he is registered or not)

Pepper, your posts are usually spot on and I look forward to reading them.

In some states, such as NC, RP cannot be written in (as a R), so if you do write him in, your vote is thrown out. I'm not sure if your whole ticket is tossed, or just your write in, but that is the fact that we are faced with. In NC, the only way we can vote for RP is for him to get on a third party ticket, BUT he would have to give up his seat in the House to do that. It's just not going to happen.

So we watch and wait and see how things work out closer to the election.

The biggest and most important thing is not getting RP into the POTUS position, it's getting Liberty loving individuals into local, state and national seats THIS YEAR and next year. AND getting ourselves into positions in the gop where we can direct what the party does.

We will survive whatever happens as far as a presidential election is concerned, hopefully. We've managed to survive pretty bad times in the past, tho our liberties have been stomped on to a point that recovery may take a lot longer.

Never give up the fight. It is not about the man, it's the message.

[Matt Collins]

But, if he believes this crap about terrorism, that the war in Iraq is necessary to protect us, then it is more difficult.Yes he goes to a Jewish / Christian church that adamantly supports Israel and was a former officer of the US Navy. :confused:

[MRoCkEd]

How do I respond to my dad who wants me to vote for mccain?
"You can't live in fantasy land - you have to pick between the two with a chance. Just remember - if Obama gets in, you will be paying for your college and taking out loans."

[Truth Warrior]

Evil?

Boycott it. ;)

[Minuteman2008]

I am voting for Chuck Baldwin simply because I despise McCain so badly. I would have voted for any of the GOP candidates over Obama (even Guiliani, though it would have hurt), but not McCain. He has betrayed conservatives at every opportunity.

The man is simply the fall guy that the MSM help put up against Obama. Obama can hand McCain every opportunity to capitalize on, like affirmative action quotas, immigration, taxes and free speech, but the man simply won't even try, so he's going to lose badly. McCain would rather pander to la Raza than court conservatives. That's fine, he won't get my vote. By playing by Obama's rules, and trying to outpander the most liberal senator in the nation, McCain is just proving what a worthless hollow shell of a politician he is.

If I were absolutely forced to pick between these two, yes, I'd vote for McCain and hope Republicans in congress would stand up to his worst excesses, but I don't have to do that. Instead I can vote for someone whose ideas and values I share. To me, both Obama and McCain are one-world globalists or internationalist first, rather than Americans first. We've already had eight years of that.