vote4ronpauleeze
01-17-2008, 04:50 PM
When I hear people say, "Yeah, Ron Paul's not bad, but he's not electable"....
Sorry, but I can't help but think of how moronic this statement is and for a couple reasons.
1. It implies that your vote "one little vote" for Ron Paul won't matter, yet your "one little vote" for another candidate will? So your same one vote is thrown away for Ron Paul, yet you're stupid enough to think that same vote will miraculously swing the election and make a difference for Obama or McCain. Dumb logic.
2. Stand up for what YOU believe in. There's nothing more sheep-like than following the crowd and letting OTHER PEOPLE dictate your decisions and beliefs. At that point, you're just a sell-out, a follower, and you are sacrificing your true beliefs because of others.
3. Who decides who is electable anyway? Everybody gets ONE vote (unless you live in Chicago or work for diebold, but I digress). That's right, everyone has equal say. So, let's run through a hypothetical: No primaries or caucuses have been held, and there is no communication with anyone else about their choice for candidate. There are no polls or any indication of who is in front and let's say the media is completely objective (bear with me). Now, you vote for your beliefs. That is the way the system is supposed to work. No media influence. No "following the crowd". Just you and your vote. The question of electability would never come up. Nor should it, because you're voting based on your true thoughts... Now let's come back to the status quo. With media bias, misleading polls, and disparity in campaign finances, now you are dealt with electability. So, what is the difference between the two scenarios? What can we logically deduce caused the term "electability"? Media influence. Following the crowd. And who's got the most money.
If you believe in the basic principles of the democratic process, stand up for your own beliefs, and aren't susceptible to bias and external pressure, then "electability" doesn't cross your mind.
I will vote Ron Paul to the very end.
Sorry, but I can't help but think of how moronic this statement is and for a couple reasons.
1. It implies that your vote "one little vote" for Ron Paul won't matter, yet your "one little vote" for another candidate will? So your same one vote is thrown away for Ron Paul, yet you're stupid enough to think that same vote will miraculously swing the election and make a difference for Obama or McCain. Dumb logic.
2. Stand up for what YOU believe in. There's nothing more sheep-like than following the crowd and letting OTHER PEOPLE dictate your decisions and beliefs. At that point, you're just a sell-out, a follower, and you are sacrificing your true beliefs because of others.
3. Who decides who is electable anyway? Everybody gets ONE vote (unless you live in Chicago or work for diebold, but I digress). That's right, everyone has equal say. So, let's run through a hypothetical: No primaries or caucuses have been held, and there is no communication with anyone else about their choice for candidate. There are no polls or any indication of who is in front and let's say the media is completely objective (bear with me). Now, you vote for your beliefs. That is the way the system is supposed to work. No media influence. No "following the crowd". Just you and your vote. The question of electability would never come up. Nor should it, because you're voting based on your true thoughts... Now let's come back to the status quo. With media bias, misleading polls, and disparity in campaign finances, now you are dealt with electability. So, what is the difference between the two scenarios? What can we logically deduce caused the term "electability"? Media influence. Following the crowd. And who's got the most money.
If you believe in the basic principles of the democratic process, stand up for your own beliefs, and aren't susceptible to bias and external pressure, then "electability" doesn't cross your mind.
I will vote Ron Paul to the very end.