Do Not Vote

[Mammon]

From what I can tell, you are nothing more than a glorified Democrat cheerleader and apologist. Should we pay no attention to what you say on the topic of politics? Or should we judge your words against the facts of reality?

I'm just a guy who thinks assets should equal liabilities and equity.

[Pyotr]

I've decided to abstain from voting for president. I may write in "none of the above."

[RationalBiker]

I'm just a guy who thinks assets should equal liabilities and equity.

Obscurity and ambiguity should not be confused with wisdom or an argument.

[Mammon]

Obscurity and ambiguity should not be confused with wisdom or an argument.

You're right, it would be an outright shame for people to do that.

I do things differently.

[RationalBiker]

I do things differently.

Except with the comment that I commented on.

[Mammon]

Of course, Trancinski is nothing more then a glorified Republican cheerleader and apologist. He has advocated in the past that we switch to a one party system, with only the Republicans.

I do need to recant some of this and say that Trancinski isn't merely these things.

He has a history of supporting the Republicans, in almost every instance. So seeing the post made about him calling McCain a lesser of two evils only said to me "More of the same... Trancinski has been saying the same thing for years now. There is nothing to listen to." I did read what he had to say, but I could of said it for him because it's 100% predictable.

I'm upset that a man like him can't see the error of his ways. You too, fletch.

Edit: Also, moving this topic was a good idea.

Edited November 3, 2008 by Mammon

[D'kian]

He has a history of supporting the Republicans, in almost every instance. So seeing the post made about him calling McCain a lesser of two evils only said to me "More of the same... Trancinski has been saying the same thing for years now. There is nothing to listen to." I did read what he had to say, but I could of said it for him because it's 100% predictable.

You know, you remind me of those people who thought every lunar landing after Apollo XI was a waste, because we'd already landed on the Moon.

The point isn'y whether or not Tracinski supports the GOP. The point is, does he have a reason for doing so? And is it a valid reason?

In 2004 he thought the most important issue was to avoid a loss in Iraq, because such a loss would empower all Islamists and do us very much damage. Therefore he supoprted Bush (he qualified that support as anti-Bushites for Bush), because Kerry would most likely cut and run.

You may disagree, but it is a valid reason.

[funandlearning]

The methods! The methods!

[AllMenAreIslands]

I'm in Canada, and we had an election just before the U.S. (with only about 2 months of electioneering instead of about 24).

In my riding, the incumbent is what's called a New Democrat, which means he's a bit more socialist than the average contestant. And he won handily. So my vote for one of the others wouldn't have changed things.

I wrote-in voted by crossing out the name of the guy who was running as an Independent and inserting the words The Individuals' Party,

My dream is to create The Individuals' Party and market it worldwide encouraging people to vote for True Freedom - meaning the kind of freedom you get when you choose rational government and objective law.

Maybe it's a bit of a pipe dream. What do you think? Is it better than "No Confidence"?

[Halsey17]

Originally I had resolved not to vote, but then another idea occurred to me. The best way to confound democracy may actually be to sell your vote. Good luck finding a serious buyer though.

[Sir Andrew]

I actually forgot to get a stamp for my app before the deadline, but I actually don't feel like I missed on anything. I may have written in "John Galt" if I had voted, though.

[Rasczak]

There *isn't* a political party that comes even close to advocating the philosophy of Ayn Rand because the ideological base is so bad. ... It's not possible to reform any of the existing parties because they are grounded in bad ideas, including the Libertarian party.

If the goal is not attempting to reform a party or government, refusing to participate in the political process is the best way to go about it. Unfortunately all the right thinking and properly formed ideologies in the world will never effect an outcome unless they are acted on.

[Space Patroller]

I ended up not voting, This in the Peoples' Repubic of Massachussetts, which is not only hard to spell, but hard to take. Had there benn a contest, I would have done so but why bestir myself to put one more drop of water in an ocean?

I don't mess with third parties, given their track recored of accomplishments. Why paly on this side streets?

My first choice was Romney. My second was Hillary. and my third was Obama. Hucksterby was just that and Giuliani, well, you saw what he got, so they were out and it was predictable. So by May, I decided that I would give my vote to Obama.

Why?

I saw McCain as a threat to my ends by virtue of the fact that he blurred the differences between the GOP and the Dems to the point where his win would take the party 20 points left irretrevably; i.e. Dem and Demmer, and when the economy went south, I wanted it to be all Democrats all the time to get hit in the pus with it. To cheat fools, give them that for which they ask.

http://cockpit.spacepatrol.us/08feb.html

will give you more detailed insight into my thinking.

[Jacob Smith]

I agree with the admin on this. Anyone who gets elected will only add their contribution in taking down US an inch further than the previous president, may it be Democrats or Republicans and after few years of being elected, the candidate will prove to be no better than Obama. That is what has been happening so far and that is why the enormous difference between the US during Founding fathers' time and of now within such a short span of time.