Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Which candidate to vote for?

Rate this topic


Which candidate to vote for?  

70 members have voted

  1. 1. Which candidate to vote for?

    • John McCain (R)
      18
    • Barack Obama (D)
      10
    • Ron Paul (R)
      5
    • Bob Barr (LP)
      7
    • Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party)
      0
    • Brian Moore (Socialist Party)
      0
    • A Green Party candidate
      0
    • Ralph Nader (I)
      0
    • Alan Keyes (I)
      0
    • Won't vote
      12


Recommended Posts

I was one of the Obama voters. To put it simply, the Republicans have more long-term danger than Obama, though I grit my teeth as an avid gun collector/shooter.

If his wife is any representation of his intentions, I cannot back Obama:

We have lost the understanding that in a democracy, we have a mutual obligation to one another -- that we cannot measure the greatness of our society by the strongest and richest of us, but we have to measure our greatness by the least of these. That we have to compromise and sacrifice for one another in order to get things done.

...

Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your division. That you come out of your isolation. That you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual; uninvolved, uninformed.

Are you still fine with your vote for Obama given that this kind of destructive talk would only spread and become more accepted if it is given a 4-year world audience?

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Stop misquoting me. I said McCain would get nothing done, not do nothing. Meaning, he will do stuff, but in the end nothing positive will come of it. Like the Bush Adminstration. The taxes cuts were nulled by the inflation, energy policies, and funding for the war. I don't feel that much safer, I think fact that there hasn't been attack on U.S. has less to due with Bush and more to do with everyone else. But anyone else and his place and the results would be the same, maybe even better.

Meanwhile, the Christians have gained significant political leverage and are continuing to do so (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1145040920080611?sp=true This is a link I wanted to put in, but I forgot the HTML and the button isn't working) and that's about the extent a lot of Republicans are willing to go in there political moves.

The Republicans don't care about you. If you can't deliver votes or money, politicians don't care about you. The Republicans give what the people who guarantee them another term want -- more Christian-friendly legislation, and pandering to certain industries at the expense of the American citizen.

They give lip service to the free-market because they want people to be free enough to give them more money. And honestly, taxes aren't your biggest concern. A few more dollars in taxs every month is not something you should base you votes on. You're going to get taxed no matter who is in office, it's a damn sunk cost. Taxes pay for government spending, inflating the currency pays for government spending, and the Republicans are 100% for government spending -- which *gasp* needs to be payed off somehow!! So a lower tax rate right now isn't going to make a damn bit of difference in the big scheme of things. And that's the extent that most Republicans are willing to give about the economy.

They aren't going to cut spending, they aren't going to shut down the Fed and put us on a Goldstandard, they aren't going to remove regulations giving monopolies to certain companies (because those people usually pay for there campaigns).... so in a nutshell, they are useless. They are more likely to pass laws against abortion and gay-marriage because there retarded Christian supporters will only notice them if they do these things.

So I'm voting for Obama, if he gets the nomination. Peikoff is still supporting the Democrats, and I agree with him. Also, I don't think he is nearly as bad as some of you paint him to be. In fact, I think you are only doing that because you can't possible concieve of voting for a Democrat and will rationalize your way down the yellow brick road as long as it leads to Wizard of the GOP. Didn't Peikoff say if you vote Republican, then you don't understand Objectivism or how to apply philosophy to politics?

It's speculation, and a personal attack, but I'm wondering how many of you get all your news from some bias Right wing site. You guys seem to regurgitate the same things I hear coming from those sites. Don't drink the Kool-Aid please.

And a few words about McCain. He will probably die in office. I can't see him doing it for 8 years. He's so old. That's not a good reason not to vote for him, but it's worth considering. And look at the people he is browsing for his VP. One of them is Bobby Jindal, governor of my state. Do you know what Jindal campaigned on? Change. We can Change, we must Change, we will Change. And everyone ate this up like it was a cheeseburger covered in Chocolate ice cream with zero trans fats or caleries. It's perfectly okay for a Republican to campaign on some vague notion of "change" but if a Democrat does it... it's bad,evil, communist, and he probably hates America and is a terrorist/devil worshiper.

I'd love to stay and chat, but I hate to go learn about the economy and how no one is doing it any favors lately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I don't think he is nearly as bad as some of you paint him to be.

I am only going on his and his wife's statements on altruism (see my quote a little further up this page). If you think those are not good enough reasons to avoid Obama, please let me hear your argument.

In fact, I think you are only doing that because you can't possible concieve of voting for a Democrat

I can't conceive of voting for either party, but I can conceive of voting against the worse of the two.

Didn't Peikoff say if you vote Republican, then you don't understand Objectivism or how to apply philosophy to politics?

If that's all he said on the matter, than he has not said anything a rational being would find convincing. On its own, your statement is just an appeal to authority.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I'm voting for Obama, if he gets the nomination. Peikoff is still supporting the Democrats, and I agree with him.

You seem to be confusing McCain with a Republican of the sort that would pose a danger. To the contrary, though he ran as a Republican and managed to win that party's nomination (with Huckabee siphoning away the votes of the Christian right), McCain in my estimate is closer to the Democrats than to the Republicans. In other words, what we really have is Obama-D and McCain-D. The choice is already between two Democrats in essence, so the Peikoff calculus is inapplicable in the special context of this presidential election. In light of that conclusion I choose the weaker candidate, McCain, i.e. the less likely to lead, persuade, and prevail with his leftist ideas, particularly now that the Democrats control Congress, as they did not in 2006.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that's all he said on the matter, than he has not said anything a rational being would find convincing. On its own, your statement is just an appeal to authority.

He said it regarding the 2004 campaign, because Bush was a big time supporter of religion and was injecting religion into government via things like his faith based initiatives. The reason there is such a big concern for religion is because it has a strong absolutist moral component that attracts people. Leftists have moral relativism and are thus much weaker in that regard. This means long term the religionists would have more traction.

That's not to say the leftists are worthy of being voted for. They are very dangerous themselves and they could take us down in flames.

My observation of these primaries, however, is that the religious right was rejected. McCain did not come across as an advocate of the religious right. He gave them the cold shoulder. He was probably the weakest of the republicans when it came to that. He does buy into a lot of left wing pabulum, however.

Free speech will be an issue, as postmodernists are going after that. Canada is ahead of us in this regard (see Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant), so take note what is going on there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to be confusing McCain with a Republican of the sort that would pose a danger. To the contrary, though he ran as a Republican and managed to win that party's nomination (with Huckabee siphoning away the votes of the Christian right), McCain in my estimate is closer to the Democrats than to the Republicans. In other words, what we really have is Obama-D and McCain-D. The choice is already between two Democrats in essence, so the Peikoff calculus is inapplicable in the special context of this presidential election. In light of that conclusion I choose the weaker candidate, McCain, i.e. the less likely to lead, persuade, and prevail with his leftist ideas, particularly now that the Democrats control Congress, as they did not in 2006.

I have made no decision as yet (most likely I will not vote for president or anything more local, but only on ballot initiatives)--however this makes some degree of sense. If McCain (RINO) is facing a congress that is (D), they will fight each other out of sheer tribalism and not actually *do* anything to make things worse.

If, as the election comes closer, it looks like the RINOs will re-assume control, then by this logic one should vote for the Obamanation. (Pronounce it just right and it sounds close to "abomination".)

PS for those not in the know, RINO = Republican In Name Only, a label applied by "conservative" Republicans--and they do exist, they just aren't in control of the party--to the ones who act like "liberals" and spend lots of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of McCain's temporary appeal to voters this year, he is part of the Republican party. They, and McCain as well, fundamentally believe in the union of Church and State - the only disagreement is to what degree. As we all know, fundamental premises dictate that eventually people like McCain will lose any intellectual battle with those who are more consistent than he is (ie Huckabee.)

The GOP is the most pertinent long-term threat to the country in terms of the harm they'd do if in control of any part of the government, for that and other reasons.

Does anyone want socialized medicine to be advanced under McCain and be called a "free market reform"?

Does anyone want religion to encroach further into our schools and be labeled as capitalism?

The GOP not only advances religion (and yes, even if McCain is "religious light," his party label helps advance the GOP,) but destroys capitalism by not supporting it consistently. We are going to go towards more socialism (or fascism) either way - let us then, at least, have a party in control who won't harp about how free market they are. Otherwise we will end up even further down the road of "Our choices are religious fascism or multiculturalist fascism."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whenever the Republicans tamper with the economy and cause a problem it gets blamed on capitalism. If the right nationalized all private property and herded us onto collective farms, the left would still say they're too hands off and pro business. America is probably better off if the person screwing up the economy is not someone people mistakenly associate with the free market. There will be a slightly better chance that the public will start to comprehend that government controls are what's causing our problems.

I guess I'll have to begrudgingly vote for Obama even though I think he is an atrocious, putrid, and horrid excuse for a human being. I wonder if all the crazy people who idolize him like a rock star really understand and share his beliefs? I think a lot of them must just be enamored with his big shiny teeth and the word "change" (which Obama uses as a floating abstraction.) It would be funny if the liberals started putting "vote for teeth" bumper stickers on their cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe all the people voting for Obama! You might as well be supporting a Socialist or a Green party member while your at it. There is no way McCain would screw up the economy as much as Obama would. Like its been said elsewhere on the site the man is a "blank out" and a "zero". He has no ideas and is just the puppet of a large mob of socialist and greens. Are these people the people you want running the economy?

Not to mention his ideas of socialized medicine and labor ideas. Who knows maybe he will rise the minimum wage to $100,000 an hour. We'll all be millionaires! Brilliant!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whenever the Republicans tamper with the economy and cause a problem it gets blamed on capitalism.

I've seen this argument made a few times; as I see it, the Republican aspect is derivative and secondary, which is to say, non-essential, hence the argument is unpersuasive. Let us examine why. If McCain tampers with the economy and causes a problem, it will get blamed on capitalism. If Obama tampers with the economy and causes a problem, it will get blamed on capitalism. Regardless of who causes the problem, it will get blamed on capitalism. The only distinction, which is derivative and non-essential, is whether the occupant of the White House will share in the blame by his association (rightly or wrongly) with capitalism. The point is that saving capitalism from blame will not result from electing Obama and hence is no reason to vote for Obama.

Edited by Seeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen this argument made a few times; as I see it, the Republican aspect is derivative and secondary, which is to say, non-essential, hence the argument is unpersuasive. Let us examine why. If McCain tampers with the economy and causes a problem, it will get blamed on capitalism. If Obama tampers with the economy and causes a problem, it will get blamed on capitalism. Regardless of who causes the problem, it will get blamed on capitalism. The only distinction, which is derivative and non-essential, is whether the occupant of the White House will share in the blame by his association (rightly or wrongly) with capitalism.

Heads, the anticapitalists and the (one possible) occupant of the White House win,

tails, we and the (other possible) occupant of the White House lose.

In all seriousness, I think Seeker has a point.

The "free market" (which isn't) will be blamed for "failing" (which is at least true, there is a failure), the question is whether the occupant of the white house will pretend to stand up for the "free market" (while in fact doing nothing of the kind, not that it's really a free market anyway) or whether he will attack the non-free market while claiming it's a free market. In other words both sides will claim what we have is a free market, dishonestly. Talk about weaseling on top of a stolen concept (or is it a package deal?)!

If your head is spinning after reading that paragraph I don't blame you.

Edited by Steve D'Ippolito
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talk about weaseling on top of a stolen concept (or is it a package deal?)!

This would be a package deal, since a stolen concept is when one uses a concept in the process of denying it. The concept in question (free markets) doesn't exist in the current economy, and is unavailable to be stolen. In this case, McCain is "advocating" free markets, but his actual positions are to add more controls. The package deal here consists of capitalism and statism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe all the people voting for Obama! You might as well be supporting a Socialist or a Green party member while your at it.

That is unjust. The difference is that Obama has a chance of being elected. The proper standard of choice in this case is: who will be more damaging to freedom in the long run-Obama or McCain? My vote for Obama reflects my answer to this question. Whatever Obama's views, he will have to respect the Democratic party line to some extent, which will have a moderating influence on his policies. The fact that he may talk like a socialist or a green is not necessarily a good indication of his policies while in office.

There is no way McCain would screw up the economy as much as Obama would.

This may be true in the short run, though I suspect it is exaggerated. The real question is not who will raise taxes more, but who is more likely to bring about a new dark age.

Like its been said elsewhere on the site the man is a "blank out" and a "zero".

Good. Better that than a candidate who will be forced to appease perhaps the most dangerous phenomenon in America today: religious conservatism.

He has no ideas and is just the puppet of a large mob of socialist and greens. Are these people the people you want running the economy?

The Democratic party is certainly not a "large mob of socialists and greens". I know many democrats and nearly all of them are disillusioned moderates who were serious about socialism decades ago, but have since decided that "one has to be practical". Recently, I overheard a college-age democrat say something to the effect that one must retain one's ideals while living in the 'real world' (in other words: not acting on them). I am pretty sure she is an Obama supporter. I claim that most democrats are like this: they are pragmatists who do not take ideas seriously. Do not be fooled by their speeches. Many leftists enjoy hearing such speeches, but most of them do not really expect many changes to be made (except perhaps for a withdrawl from Iraq). After all, "we have to be practical". The only strong unifying issue in the Democratic party is a dislike of the Republican party. I am not claiming that the democrats are harmless by any means. Among other things, the nationalization of healthcare would be very harmful if carried out (though I think it is only a matter of time until Republicans also advocate this). The Democratic party, however, is not a threat to western civilization as it stands today (I'm not saying that this couldn't change). It is merely an impediment to progress.

Who knows maybe he will rise the minimum wage to $100,000 an hour. We'll all be millionaires!

That is absurd, and everyone knows it. Even a Soviet communist would understand that such a policy could not be enforced. Also, it is wrong to ascribe so much importance to the minimum wage. A raise in the minimum wage, while destructive, will not bring about a new dark age.

As Peikoff has argued, religious conservatism is a genuine threat to civilization. Which do you regard as a greater danger, the teaching of Creationism in public schools, or a drastic rise in the minimum wage? I don't think these two are even comparable in terms of destructive potential. Communism is dead in most of the world, and even the most radical of leftists knows it. Religion is by no means dead: it has throttled mankind for thousands of years, and it can do so again if it is allowed.

While McCain may not personally be a religious conservative, most Christian fundamentalists consider themselves to be Republicans, and a Republican victory will only embolden them. Whatever the truth, many of the more moderate religious conservatives will see consistent democratic victories as a rejection of Christianity, and that is the message that has to be sent. The Republican party gives religious conservatives a forum for their ideas. Being the most philosophically consistent members of the party, they will likely come to dominate it in time. The stronger the Republican party, the more legitimacy the fundamentalists will gain. Make the Republican party weak, and it will moderate it's positions in order to get votes. When this happens, the religious right, whose members take ideas seriously, will likely form/join alternative parties, and will be marginalized. After this happens, voting Republican will be an entirely reasonable alternative.

Moderate leftists confront civilization with a speedbump. The religious right confronts it with a road-block.

Edited by Tenzing_Shaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may be true in the short run, though I suspect it is exaggerated. The real question is not who will raise taxes more, but who is more likely to bring about a new dark age.
We've had 8 years of a religious conservative as president and during six of those years we had both houses of congress controlled by the dreaded religious Republicans, and unless I missed it, I dont see any evidence that we took any giant steps back toward the Dark Ages during that period. Not only that, the Republicans have now lost their majorities in both houses and seem on the brink of losing the White House as well. Even if McCain wins, he has no ties at all to the religous right, so they will be out of power regardless. What I fear from an Obama presidency coupled with a congress controlled by left-wing, environmentalist Democrats is enough hatred of industry to spark a return not to the Dark Ages, but to the Stone Age.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whenever the Republicans tamper with the economy and cause a problem it gets blamed on capitalism. If the right nationalized all private property and herded us onto collective farms, the left would still say they're too hands off and pro business. America is probably better off if the person screwing up the economy is not someone people mistakenly associate with the free market. There will be a slightly better chance that the public will start to comprehend that government controls are what's causing our problems.

In Soviet Russia, when the five year plans failed, they blamed it on capitalism. Anyone who is informed about these matters knows that McCain is no advocate of laissez faire capitalism, so I don't see why you're concerned that the free market will mistakenly be associated with mixed economy schemes that ultimately fail.

Presidential politics under a two party system necessarily dictates that we end up having to settle for the best choice presented by either the Dems or the Repubs. Given that fact of reality, combined with the fact that politics is also an incremental game, I'm voting for McCain. The Republicans and the Democrats weren't able to screw this country up in four years and we won't be able to fix it in four. Nevertheless, on virtually every major issue McCain is incrementally better than Obama. He may not be the advocate of free markets that we'd like to see, but we have a better chance of seeing improvements under a McCain administration than we do under an Obama regime backed by majorities in both houses of congress and a potential fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Soviet Russia, when the five year plans failed, they blamed it on capitalism. Anyone who is informed about these matters knows that McCain is no advocate of laissez faire capitalism, so I don't see why you're concerned that the free market will mistakenly be associated with mixed economy schemes that ultimately fail.

Presidential politics under a two party system necessarily dictates that we end up having to settle for the best choice presented by either the Dems or the Repubs. Given that fact of reality, combined with the fact that politics is also an incremental game, I'm voting for McCain. The Republicans and the Democrats weren't able to screw this country up in four years and we won't be able to fix it in four. Nevertheless, on virtually every major issue McCain is incrementally better than Obama. He may not be the advocate of free markets that we'd like to see, but we have a better chance of seeing improvements under a McCain administration than we do under an Obama regime backed by majorities in both houses of congress and a potential fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

I won't go so far as to say we'll actually see improvements under McCain, but if Congress is definitely staying Democrat, voting for the Republican Party-backed nominee seems like the best way to prevent any of their idiotic schemes (both D and R) from being realized. Even though McCain is more Democrat than Republican, if the Democrats come ahead in Congress after the elections, the Republicans are going to put enormous pressure on him to fall in line with their beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Peikoff has argued, religious conservatism is a genuine threat to civilization. Which do you regard as a greater danger, the teaching of Creationism in public schools, or a drastic rise in the minimum wage? I don't think these two are even comparable in terms of destructive potential. Communism is dead in most of the world, and even the most radical of leftists knows it. Religion is by no means dead: it has throttled mankind for thousands of years, and it can do so again if it is allowed.

I completely disagree with this line of thinking.

Christianity is waning. This "surge" that you and others claim to see is it's last attempt to regain footing as it becomes obsolete. Eight years of Bush and six years of a Republican Congress and all you guys can do is spout paranoia about "faith based initiatives" as if there are going to be roving bands of rednecks lynching gays and forcing women to have children at gunpoint.

Is teaching creationism in schools dangerous? I don't think so. Stupid, yes. Against the constitution, yes. Ridiculous, yes. But give me a break. This is 12 years of church, bible school, and Sunday school talking. And I rejected "God" the very day I stopped living with my Catholic mother and she ceased to have control over me. So much for all that "indoctrination". Besides which, the very idea of creationism being taught in schools is a moot point if we were to privatize the schools in this country. Which isn't likely to happen anytime soon.

The real religion that threatens everyone is Islam. And the Democrats have made it fairly obvious that it wants to ally with the Muslims in the name of multiculturalism. With Democrats in power, it gives the Muslims free reign to infiltrate our society from within. They practice Taqiyya, feign innocence and perpetual victim-hood and use our own free speech laws against us.

Communism is dead? Are you kidding? What do you think environmentalism has become? It's the new socialist dogma adopted by those that feel guilty about their very existence (which is pretty much what defines a religion). Mother Earth is God, sins include capitalism and industry, Al Gore is the messiah, and catastrophic climate changes are the fires of hell.

When the government has my money, it decides what's best for me. It can then restrict my speech, force me to give up my guns, and tell me what to do. The more money I have, the more power I have. It's really that simple.

I'm voting for McCain. If for no other reason, because we have a Democratic Congress. True, he's a horrible candidate, but Obama is so much worse.

Christianity doesn't concern me. Read the numbers of religious statistics. They are a dying breed.

The future is Islam and socialism. And I'll be damned if I stand by and let it happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sen. Obama cited new economic forces to explain what appears like a return to an older-style big-government Democratic platform skeptical of market forces. "Globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers," he said, and a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably.

From the front page of today's Wall Street Journal. This guy is making it very clear what he's going to do to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sen. Obama cited new economic forces to explain what appears like a return to an older-style big-government Democratic platform skeptical of market forces. "Globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers," he said, and a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably.

From the front page of today's Wall Street Journal. This guy is making it very clear what he's going to do to us.

Well if he fails miserably like some of you all say he will, then people can use his views as an example of what doesn't work.

A Professor of mine told me today that only after Republican Presidents do we get a recession, I looked into it and sure enough it has been true so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if he fails miserably like some of you all say he will, then people can use his views as an example of what doesn't work.

At this point, I would say that the historical record is pretty clear regarding the failures of socialist economic policies. If people still need more examples, I'd prefer that the experiments be done in some other country and with someone else's money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if he fails miserably like some of you all say he will, then people can use his views as an example of what doesn't work.

First we create the problem, then we solve it, eh?

Unfortunately, the choice of a president is not merely an example-setting teaching exercise, but has real-world ramifications. The evidence so far suggests that Obama is an ill-educated, ill-prepared, ill-experienced disaster-in-waiting. For example, we know from the feckless approach of Bill Clinton which culminated in the disaster of 9/11, what the tragic consequences of a weak, foolhardy foreign policy would be, and the evidence suggests that Obama would pursue precisely that course once again. I suppose the thousands who died in the 9/11 attacks also serve as an example of what doesn't work. Apparently, we didn't learn our lesson, did we?

A Professor of mine told me today that only after Republican Presidents do we get a recession, I looked into it and sure enough it has been true so far.

Even assuming, arguendo, that this is true, it says absolutely nothing about causality as opposed to mere coincidence; it offers no facts pertaining to the nature of Republican presidents and recessions that would even remotely suggest a causal connection. In other words, your professor's assertion is worthless. I suppose the mediocre education you'll receive will also serve as an example of what doesn't work.

Edited by Seeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...