• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

McFlip & ObamaFlop

N

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
These two flip flop artists are your choices or so you're led to believe....

The other night an older gentleman, about 6'3", grey hair and like colored mustache was standing outside at a gas station and I had the pleasure to converse with him. This former Navy Seal from the Viet Nam era was blunt in his description on tactics used to get the job done over there, killing entire villages so no one could say which way they went. Moving in teams of two, he and his fellow Seal went about liberating hostages, POW's and/or taking out officers or targets of high interest. Having no regrets about his duties because in his words "It was my job".

We began talking about the current war and how it should change. He mentioned that we needed to make them pay for the attacks on 9/11 and I was quick to point out that Iraq had nothing to do with it. It was obvious he was Pro-war so I had a hunch on which way he was going to vote, but I asked anyway. "McCain" he said with glee. Big surprise here, McCain was in Viet Nam, he was in Viet Nam, I got the connection (imagine that 😛 ). After probing him a bit about his vote choice he came down to "He is the lesser of the two evils". Throwing my arms up in the air "I never get that. If you have evil on the left and evil on the right, either one you choose you still be EVIL! Why not vote someone else in?" and without hesitation he said "Those are our only two choices". Shaking my head "Everyone thinks that but its not true. If all of the disgusted people got together and wrote in someone, ANYONE then we could get away from all this 'evil for evil' politicians.". "It won't happen" he said. I agreed, too many believe there is but two choices. After another 15 minutes or so of talking we parted ways but it still lingers in my mind.

Too many believe that if they don't vote for the Democrats or the Republicans their vote is wasted. While others party it up because their 'horse' won. No one wants to be a loser, but if I were to lose on purpose it would be for a good cause such as integrity, loyalty and honesty. I don't care who you vote for, hell vote in grandma if she is the one you feel fits the bill. But once you see that the 'top' candidates are not as trustworthy as they once were and seem to pander for votes, its time to find another 'horse' to run the race in my opinion.

One of the better quotes I have read recently:

"I would rather fail at something I love than succeed at something I hate." - The late George Burns
 
mctroll's flip flops far outweigh obama's. i dont think people care too much about flip flopping on political campaign funding in comparison with taxes and immigration.
 
Yeah, yeah, you support Ron Paul. We get it. What you don't get is many (most) considered RP the most of the evils and that's why he didn't come close to winning the nomination over a very weak field of (R) candidates. Please give up this cause of Ross Perot 2008.
 
Originally posted by: Robor
Yeah, yeah, you support Ron Paul. We get it. What you don't get is many (most) considered RP the most of the evils and that's why he didn't come close to winning the nomination over a very weak field of (R) candidates. Please give up this cause of Ross Perot 2008.
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah, you can't read as usual. I never mentioned him. I did mention your grandma, but I guess lying is something you like. Oh wait what is that new fangled word you use for lying? Flexible, thats right. :disgust:
 
Two terms:

1.) Collective action problem
2.) Strategic voting

These more then adequately explain why there only actually ARE two choices for any national office of meaning.
 
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: Robor
Yeah, yeah, you support Ron Paul. We get it. What you don't get is many (most) considered RP the most of the evils and that's why he didn't come close to winning the nomination over a very weak field of (R) candidates. Please give up this cause of Ross Perot 2008.
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah, you can't read as usual. I never mentioned him. I did mention your grandma, but I guess lying is something you like. Oh wait what is that new fangled word you use for lying? Flexible, thats right. :disgust:
Click to expand...

LOL :thumbsup:
That cracked me up. :laugh:
 
there will be at least a third choice in the libertarian candidate (though bob barr does nothing special for me).

of course it is the mentality of American's that needs to change before we can elect anyone other than the republicrats ...
 
Well, one thing I have got to say, that older distinguished looking ex Navy seal was pure moral bankruptcy personified. What clue could he possibly have about evil or the less of
when he is purely a scum of the earth murder and absolutely a political. You would find more patriotism in the mafia.
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well, one thing I have got to say, that older distinguished looking ex Navy seal was pure moral bankruptcy personified. What clue could he possibly have about evil or the less of
when he is purely a scum of the earth murder and absolutely a political. You would find more patriotism in the mafia.
Click to expand...

He was just doing his job. There are some jobs where it's better to not ask questions or have moral qualms. If you have those characteristics, you shouldn't have asked for the job in the first place.
 
Originally posted by: DerekWilson
there will be at least a third choice in the libertarian candidate (though bob barr does nothing special for me).

of course it is the mentality of American's that needs to change before we can elect anyone other than the republicrats ...
Click to expand...

No, the structure of our electoral system needs to change. With the way it is currently set up it is for all intents and purposes impossible to have more then 2 choices that could actually win.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Two terms:

1.) Collective action problem
2.) Strategic voting

These more then adequately explain why there only actually ARE two choices for any national office of meaning.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I'm a believer in "strategic voting".

Neither candidate is my ideal choice. Yet I contend that there is merit in voting for the lesser of 2 evils. What rational person would not want to avoid the *most* evil?

Even if my candidate loses, I can take some solice in that my vote made the margin of victory for the *most* evil smaller. That is not necessarily a small thing.

When Presidents get large margins, like Reagan, they usually get big mandates too. The smaller the margin - the lesser tha mandate and the more embolded the opposition is. IIRC, GWB started out as the weakest Prez I can recall. Only 911 changed that.

IMO, protest votes are for *suckers*, or the most fervent of ideologues.

Fern
 
Originally posted by: Fern
Yes, and I'm a believer in "strategic voting".

Neither candidate is my ideal choice. Yet I contend that there is merit in voting for the lesser of 2 evils. What rational person would not want to avoid the *most* evil?
Click to expand...

on one end we have the constitution. on the other we have both candidates.

the problem is that those who think there is really a "lesser" evil are already wrong. yeah, there might be one candidate you disagree with less, but even when a president bends the constitution to do something you agree with you should have a major problem with it.

Even if my candidate loses, I can take some solice in that my vote made the margin of victory for the *most* evil smaller. That is not necessarily a small thing.

When Presidents get large margins, like Reagan, they usually get big mandates too. The smaller the margin - the lesser tha mandate and the more embolded the opposition is. IIRC, GWB started out as the weakest Prez I can recall. Only 911 changed that.
Click to expand...

a vote for a 3rd party rather than the winning candidate still eats into their mandate.

And the fact that the "weakest" in terms of mandate president was able to do an incredible amount to weaken and damage our country should go a long way toward saying that a lack of mandate isn't going to stop anyone if the right circumstance comes along ... And wouldn't those times of crisis be the most important ones to really pay attention to a lack of mandate and try and bring the country together rather than pushing a bullshit agenda?

IMO, protest votes are for *suckers*, or the most fervent of ideologues.

Fern
Click to expand...

*sigh ...

the idea of a vote as anything other than a persons expression of support for a candidate is the cause of a great many problems in our country. devaluing any vote for any candidate cripples the intent of the system on which our country was founded and we end up with ... well shit we end up with what we have today.

maybe now that things have all gone and fucked themselves and we're stuck choosing one of two equally evil pieces of shit ... maybe your right. a protest vote doesn't matter... and in that case, the idea that the vote of a private citizen in a general has any real political power is equally "for suckers".

the only actual way to make anything happen isn't to vote. it is to stand up for what you believe, get involved in politics, run for public office, go to political conventions, email, call, write your representatives, educate people about the flaws of government, educate people about the intent of our founders, educate people about the fact that WE ARE THE SOVEREIGN HERE NOT THE GOVERNMENT, get all of your friends -- yes even the ones with different ideas on ideal policy -- to start doing exactly the same thing.

maybe a vote for the lesser of two evils will keep us from ending up in as bad a place (in your mind) as possible. but when we offer our vote to someone we can't get behind and then do nothing to stand up and shout what we do and do not approve of, we continue to make the problem worse. by not taking, using, and asserting our power we lose it.

getting our power back is infinitely more difficult than keeping it, and both regaining and keeping power are much harder than complacently thinking your vote matters and just acquiescing to the erosion of the fundamental rights and laws upon which America was established.
 
:thumbsup: DerekWilson

It is simply amazing that people think they need to vote for the lesser of two evils. They think that because the majority of people will vote for one of the two, then they need to vote for the one they consider the less evil. In actuality, they only become part of the flock of sheep, they become part of the problem rather than part of the solution. They think that the dumbass Americans are the ones voting for McCain and Obama. If only there were a mirror in the voting booths.
 
Originally posted by: DerekWilson

**cut**
Click to expand...

But we have a winner take all system? This in effect creates an insurmountable collective action problem. Say if 20% of the country thinks as you do and votes for a third party instead. (It sounds like you are anti-Bush so I'll say Democrats). You chop 20% out of the Democrats' vote and the Republicans will win literally almost everywhere because they have kept their coalition together. This would be catastrophic from a leftist stance. Since the rest of the Democrats presumably agree with the ticket more or less (or even worse splinter off into more groups), they will be screwed as well or if nothing else just be forced to join a coalition with your new party and then their interests aren't represented and we're right back to where we started just with different people unrepresented.

The problem with this country isn't that people won't vote for third parties. It's not that people aren't politically active enough. It's not that we keep voting for the Democrats/Republicans.

Our system is fundamentally built in this way to only allow for two parties. (with slight variation) It's solid enough that in Political Science circles it's called Duverger's law. The 'law' states that in any single member winner take all system that it will very likely become a two party system. There are a few exceptions here or there, but they tend to have to do with regional parties. (ie. there might be more then 2 parties represented in Congress, but in any single election there are only 2 viable candidates)

If you want to fix this, you have to fix our system... which would require a Constitutional amendment being passed by the two ruling parties to cut into their power base. I won't hold my breath.
 
^^^ ... if American's enforced their rights and the constitution was respected as the rule of law FROM THE START, no American would need to worry about "the lesser of two evils" because the government would be thoroughly restrained from being as evil as people worry about that "greater" evil being.

look at the 10th amendment (and the sections it references). it's pretty damn clear.

the problem is our congress votes for legislation that violates the constitution, our presidents sign into law legislation that violates the constitution, our supreme court makes ridiculous decisions upholding laws that the federal government should never have been allowed to make -- or easier still simply refuses to hear cases that are actual constitutional issues.

Oh and don't forget executive orders giving the president insane power and congress voting to give the decision for war to the president (which it cannot constitutionally do). And what can the people do? the 1st amendment says we have the right to petition for redress -- but can we really? hell no we can't. there's no system for that. but why should government expect to be held accountable to it's citizens? england didn't give a shit when America was sending petitions for redress to king george either and that worked out so well ... oh wait ... maybe i was wrong about that.

our people refuse to hold our politicians to the constitution and politicians aren't interested in doing so themselves.

this is not about a 2 party system. it's about the fact that both parties we currently think we have a choice between have violated us beyond what the average American is willing to believe.
 
Originally posted by: DerekWilson
^^^ ... if American's enforced their rights and the constitution was respected as the rule of law FROM THE START, no American would need to worry about "the lesser of two evils" because the government would be thoroughly restrained from being as evil as people worry about that "greater" evil being.

look at the 10th amendment (and the sections it references). it's pretty damn clear.

the problem is our congress votes for legislation that violates the constitution, our presidents sign into law legislation that violates the constitution, our supreme court makes ridiculous decisions upholding laws that the federal government should never have been allowed to make -- or easier still simply refuses to hear cases that are actual constitutional issues.

Oh and don't forget executive orders giving the president insane power and congress voting to give the decision for war to the president (which it cannot constitutionally do). And what can the people do? the 1st amendment says we have the right to petition for redress -- but can we really? hell no we can't. there's no system for that. but why should government expect to be held accountable to it's citizens? england didn't give a shit when America was sending petitions for redress to king george either and that worked out so well ... oh wait ... maybe i was wrong about that.

our people refuse to hold our politicians to the constitution and politicians aren't interested in doing so themselves.

this is not about a 2 party system. it's about the fact that both parties we currently think we have a choice between have violated us beyond what the average American is willing to believe.
Click to expand...

I think what people consider 'evil' is different enough that we couldn't decide on that anyway.
 
well if the vast majority of Americans can't start from a place that sees strict adherence to the constitution as decidedly "not evil" then we have a much bigger problem than politicians.
 
Originally posted by: DerekWilson
well if the vast majority of Americans can't start from a place that sees strict adherence to the constitution as decidedly "not evil" then we have a much bigger problem than politicians.
Click to expand...

Well what do you mean by strict adherence though? What is a permissible limit on presidential powers, on congressional powers? It's not at all clear, 10th amendment included, and that's probably a good thing overall. I'm with you on the whole 'stop fucking us' idea, I just don't think it's that simple unfortunately.
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well, one thing I have got to say, that older distinguished looking ex Navy seal was pure moral bankruptcy personified. What clue could he possibly have about evil or the less of when he is purely a scum of the earth murder and absolutely a political. You would find more patriotism in the mafia.
Click to expand...
as you sleep peacefully in your bed... :roll:
 
eskimospy hits the nail on the head over and over in this thread. It's a simple matter of numbers, whereby voters don't have incentive to vote for these supposed "non-evil" 3rd party candidates that espouse every belief you hold. because reality is that this gives opposition ideology (conservative or liberal) a better chance at victory. In eskimospy's example, catastrophic consequences if you're a Dem when you vote for a 3rd party. We'd all be much happier citizens had those who voted for Nader in 2000 instead voted for the "more evil" Gore. You can call that a selling out of your principles or some other such convoluted nonsense, but practical reality says that if you're a progressive your vote was far more justified for Gore than Nader in 2000, and more justified for McCain than Ron Paul if you're a conservative. Of course, I am making the assumption voters vote based on issues, which most do, and not misguided principles with no wiggle room for exceptions or interpretation (if you support Ron Paul, this is overwhelmingly your belief).
 
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well, one thing I have got to say, that older distinguished looking ex Navy seal was pure moral bankruptcy personified. What clue could he possibly have about evil or the less of when he is purely a scum of the earth murder and absolutely a political. You would find more patriotism in the mafia.
Click to expand...
as you sleep peacefully in your bed... :roll:
Click to expand...

I sleep peacefully in my bed because I have a nice mattress and flannel sheets. Not because you're running around the world with a gun in your hand. Get over yourself.
 
I think my dad said it best last weekend when the topic of politics came up. "If these three clowns are the best our country has to offer(Clinton, Obama, McCain) we are in bigger trouble than it appears".

I had to agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top