Bio not provided
Well the Constitution as we know it is getting shredded faster by Democrats than Republicans... so if you want to make an idealogical statement by throwing away your vote and reach the point where there is no constitution worth voting for then by all means make your statement.
I'd rather go the other direction.
I've seen all kinds of idealogical reasons given for throwing away your vote, but I've yet to see a logical reason,
2 years, 3 months ago on Curing the American Disease
@CarolineCarr @MikeMaharrey-TenthAmendment It's not that you're voting out of fear by choosing the smartest way to use your vote. There will ALWAYS be 2 top dogs competing for power - that's reality.
To say that Republicans are "just as bad" as Democrats is ludicrous. I could go down the list, but Repulicans are nowhere near the socialists that Democrats are. The Republicans are far from perfect, but they're a lot closer to perfect that the Democrats. They are NOT the same.
Saying you're voting for Ron Paul is like me saying I'm voting for Bubba down the street. What do you think about that? I like Bubba, I think he'll do a great job.
And if people think like this, Obama will be the president again, and Democrats will control the legislation and we're done.
Caroline I respect and appreciate your position but it's a position that will not accomplish what we both want. In fact it will damage the country even more.
Don't take this the wrong way, but if I were the enemy I'd plant a bunch of "Carolines" in our camp. Divide that vote. What a great strategy. All the conservatives voting for their own little favorite Bubba while the socialists all vote for one guy. They win.
There is just no logic whatsoever in throwing away a vote for a candidate that doesn't stand any realistic chance of winning.
2 years, 4 months ago on Curing the American Disease
@West Texan @CarolineCarr God bless Texas! Amen brother.
@CarolineCarr @MikeMaharrey-TenthAmendment This is exactly my point. In *your* opinion none of the candidates don't line up 100% with the Constitution - and you are correct. In *my* opinion, there will NEVER be a candidate that does - I am also correct, wouldn't you agree?
What happens when you no longer have any choice at all because you sat on the sidelines waiting for some perfect situation to come along?
The road back to liberty is not paved with perfect stones. Waiting on some mythical 3rd party, or some perfect candidate, or some new legislation that makes elections "fair" is asking for defeat.
@DanHunt I'm just playing devil's advocate here - I'm not sure what I think about the party system at this point - but at the time of the revolution, were there not 2 groups of political associations? loyalists vs patriots?
I guess maybe a "partyless" system would be good, but it's not based in reality because human nature is to group together for power. We'll never return to a political system without some sort of associations... and I'm not sure we ever had one.
@MikeMaharrey-TenthAmendment Yes, I totally understand the education process here and I agree with it aside from this one point. I'm just concerned that this is an incomplete model for educating the general public and it's especially dangerous to either imply or outright state that voting in federal elections is a waste of time.
I think timing is everything. Right now, I'd take 90% of Americans thinking Romney is the right guy, their only motivation being to get rid of the current bum - even though I know he falls short of a true conservative (and by "conservative" I mean one who governs according to the Constitution). I'd take Romney over Obama any day, because it's a huge improvement. Is he the perfect solution? No. We won't fix 120 years (post civil war) worth of liberty grabs by the federal government in one election... or 2... or 3.
What we can do is launch a multi-prong attack on the enemies of liberty. We can try to vote into office the best choice out of the ones running (at all levels) and then hold them accountable. We've never done the latter, but I see Americans rising up to do just that. And when they fail us, when they overreach their constitutional bounds, we nullify.
If you don't see the difference between Obama and ANY of the Republican field, then I don't know what to say. That's like saying "I don't see a difference between socialism and conservatism." ... or maybe "I don't see a difference between the US Constitution and the French Constitution." Really?
Disclaimer: Romney was my LAST preference, so don't think I'm a big fan, but...
Romney has declared that on day 1 he will issue waivers to all 50 states for Obamacare - that will significantly shrink the federal government. There are a lot of things on his platform that have great potential to shrink the federal government: http://www.mittromney.com/collection/smaller-smarter-simpler-government. I'm not foolish enough to think it will all be implemented, but at least it's the right direction and the right type of message, even if it's not 100% perfect.
Again, I'm against this "either/or" tunnel-vision mentality that's fixated on a single approach. I'm for an all-sides approach. Plus, I don't think it's wise to view all candidates as equally bad. It's a dangerous thing to have the you-either-agree-with-me-100%-or-you're-my-political-enemy mentality. You will go down in flames with this approach.
Bottom line is I'm hoping to see less "don't worry about federal elections" messages, implied or otherwise, especially during such a critical time in our country's history.
@MikeMaharrey-TenthAmendment @Michael Boldin
"6%" seems like a fairly random number - on what is that based? And even if accurate, I'll take 6% less socialism ANY DAY.
So I'll answer your question with "yes - I will vote for the best guy possible, even if he doesn't line up 100% with my views".
The reason is simple: one of those guys will be president. I'd like to help the one closest to conservative win. It's not like by passing, or in Michael's terms denying them my approval, that neither will be president and somehow everything is magically fixed because I withheld my vote.
@Michael Boldin I don't have a dilemma - other than seeing a great movement (tenthamendment) actually tell people to stay home and not vote. People have bled and died to give you that right, and you want to pass because the candidates don't line up 100% with you? That's arrogant and irresponsible.
I'm quite sure that those in power love this attitude.
If you want to "reduce the size of government", and by that I assume you mean the *power* of the federal government outside the bounds of the constitution, then you must realize that this will not happen by nullification alone. That's tunnel vision.
We have to flank this thing and attack it with everything we can. And that includes putting the most conservative leaders possible in office. Granted, they're not as conservative as you might like, but this "they're all equally bad" is totally wrong. They're not.
@Michael Boldin Furthermore, I'm 100% behind nullification and the Principles of '98. I just don't see where those principles preclude us from voting for the guy that is least likely to cause the need for nullification.
Nullification is a reaction.
Voting is proactive.
Again, it's not "either/or" - it's both!
@Michael Boldin Wow - well hopefully no one hears that message.... well, actually it would be great if the socialists heard that message and didn't vote... those of us who would like to turn this around need to get out there and vote for the most conservative person on the ticket - even if we don't agree 100% with them. You're never going to have a candidate that aligns perfectly with your personal view. The question is which way do you want the government going? It will never be static, it will continually be moving toward more freedom or less. Right now it's moving toward less.
Even if the argument is that none of the candidates will completely turn it around, then why would we not at least try to slow it down? Doing nothing seems fruitless.
The Constitution calls for the people to elect their representatives. You don't protect the Constitution by ignoring that responsibility. The only way we keep the republic is to participate in it.
While this is all true, I have a big concern of a seemingly growing sentiment of apathy toward national elections. There seems to be this (unconscious?) push from tenthers to simply abandon federal level elections and focus on local and state elections.
This is a part of great long-term solution, but to ignore, or worse minimize the importance of who holds office in Washington is fatal. We have to stop the bleeding NOW.
Yes, we most definitely need the long-term solution proposed here, but we also need to "dethrone" the socialists/marxists that are in power now by political means. We can't ignore our responsibility to elect our federal representatives any more than we can ignore our responsibility to elect local and state representatives.
The "either/or" mentality that I see emerging from this movement is somewhat troubling. It's not "either/or" it's both! We need to be electing conservative representatives that will uphold our Constitution at ALL LEVELS of government.
Since we have this responsibility of electing our representatives, it then follows that we have choices to make. In this upcoming election there will be a choice we each make that will determine the next president. If you don't think that matters, then quit reading now because nothing that follows will make sense to you.
While I appreciate the I'm-not-on-a-team-I-just-love-liberty stance, that won't cut it in the real world. In the real world there are 2 polar-opposite ideas of how this country should function competing for power. Those ideas are manifested in the 2 major political parties we now have. The idea that you can sit idly by and simply demand liberty is naive at best. We didn't lose liberty all in one chunk and we're not going to regain it all in one chunk.
If you want to make a real difference in the real world, you have to make choices that are based on reality. The reality is that either Obama or Romney WILL be president. Not Ron Paul or Bubba from down the street. The reality is there are 2 political parties at this point in history. The reality is that one is at least somewhat aligned with socialism/marxism and the other is at least somewhat aligned with conservatism.
There is no perfect candidate. There is no perfect political party. There never will be. Yet we still must choose. It would be really nice if this presidential election didn't matter as much as the election of the sheriff. But that's not reality. It would be really nice if we had a truly conservative political party that stood a chance at winning an election. But that's not reality. The reality is there is a party that will lead us toward more socialism/marxism and there is a party that will not. Yes, both parties will tend to grow government. Both parties will tend to overstep the Constitution. Neither party is ideal. But to choose neither is to allow others to choose for you. That's not how a representative republic is supposed to work.
At this point in history, we not only have a potentially fatal disease, but we have a potentially fatal wound. If we don't take care of the wound right now, it might kill us before we even have a chance to take care of the disease.
If I misread Michael's intended message, I apologize. At the same time, I would rather see articles like this end with clarity: draw your line in the sand, but don't sit idly on the sideline when it comes to national elections. Elections matter - at all levels. Elect the most conservative (Constitutionally-minded) candidate on the ticket at all levels. Push toward electing more conservative candidates next time... and even more next time.
I am guilty of trusting my "team" in the past. Those days are over, but that doesn't mean I will abandon my "team". It means I will work toward reforming my "team" - aka the Tea Party movement. I will work toward getting my "team" on the side of the Constitution.
The reality is that we will be a step closer to returning to constitutional government with the "red team". We take another step towards tyranny with the "blue team". Only one of these 2 "teams" will win - that is reality. We can't afford to sit on the sidelines and watch them duke it out. You can choose to not be on a "team", sit on the sideline, and just hope that the Constitution wins. That seems to me like a poor choice.
Pick a team and make a difference... you have no right to complain if you sit on the sideline.
I don't think it's "either or"... it's both. We need to politically engage while we can, AND prepare to go down fighting if necessary.
A SWAT team isn't going to suddenly show up to take your guns without you knowing it. It's not going to be a big surprise. If you're surprised, then you're likely not going to have been engaged politically anyway.
So for those of us paying attention, it's my humble opinion that we engage politically and arm ourselves to the teeth... do both while you can.
2 years, 4 months ago on Don't go down shooting. Nullify!