Dammit!
Fred's out, so it Looks like I'm going to vote Dem in 08. I dislike the entire crop of Republicans, and so it goes. It'll have to be four years of Democratic crap and then hopefully a return to a small government GOP candidate after that.
I will vote for Paul if he gets the nomination, but I doubt that will happen.
I will vote for Paul if he gets the nomination, but I doubt that will happen.
8 Comments:
So... which Democrat? Obama, Edwards? Not Clinton, surely?
OK, you called my bluff. I'm going to write-in for Fred. You're right, I could never knowingly vote for Hillary.
It doesn't matter for me anyway, she'll win my state if she's the candidate.
In Texas, we may vote only for pre-approved write-in candidates. Perhaps Ron Paul will be a write-in, but he'll probably have no chance. His message of freedom, limited government, and self-reliance doesn't really resonate with the American sheeple.
Texans can vote in either primary, and I'm actually considering crossing over to vote for Obama on the "worse is better" theory. The federal government opposes all my interets. Therefore, I should try to install the most incompetent possible. What do you think?
Meant to say, "I should try the most incompetent government possible." Some day I'll learn to proofread my own stuff.
If things are going to go completely to hell in this country, then the Democrats should get the blame. But I'm opposed to the idea of casting a "dissent vote" for them, because the more votes they get the more the GOP gets the message that America wants a more liberal government, and they continue their slide to the left.
Stickwick,
Has it occurred to you that most of the American sheeple really do want a more liberal, i.e., more paternalistically socialist, government? That would explain why the Republican presidential candidates of the last decade or two, and Jorge Arbusto in particular, have been indistinguishable from Democrats.
It would also indicate that there's really no way, via the normal political process, to avoid disaster. That's why I'm considering voting for the least competent Democrat. Given sufficient deprivation, sufficient disorder, and a sufficiently incompetent administration, our present totalitarian government might disappear altogether, though I admit that I might be excessively optimistic.
Would you rather continue to decline slowly, or just get the collapse over? I suppose it's a matter of personal preference.
That thought has occurred to me. WRT your last comment, it's not so much a matter of personal preference as it is hesitation, because I don't know which scenario reflects reality. Are Americans lurching towards nanny-statism en masse or is it a minority of loud-mouthed losers who are making it look that way?
Take a look at this site. From their figures for federal spending in fiscal 2007, I calculate that 58.3% of all federal expenditures were for unconstitutional income transfer programs. (I added the figures for Social Security and Disability under the Pensions heading, Health Care, Education, and Welfare to obtain a figure of 1592 billion dollars out of 2730.2 billion dollars.) The percentage would have been higher if not for the cost of the Iraqi war.
My point is that Americans are not lurching toward nanny-statism. The nanny state is here! Those of us who object to it are a small minority.
The only remaining presidential candidate who proposes to abolish the nanny state is winning very few delegates. If our electoral process is not utterly corrupt, then a majority of our electorate must have consented to the nanny state. The next president elected by the American sheeple will undoubtedly be one who proposes to expand the nanny state.
That's why I've proposed voting for the most corrupt and feckless administration possible, to get the inevitable collapse over and done while I can still fire a rifle.
Post a Comment
Testing ...
<< Home