Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The bad guy won. The fight continues.

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Activism is anything that seeks to help change the minds of those outside the group of activists.

Can you offer any specific examples of political activism to which you are referring?

A PEW survey shows that people who identify themselves as "tea-partiers" are more opposed to abortion, immigration and gay marriage than the average American voter.

That's generally true... as the advocates for those items you listed tend to belong more to the left than to the right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I would like to see a good guy win for a change, there simply aren't enough Americans in America to elect one.

Are you addressing someone else even though you quoted me? For I don't believe I referred to any "good guy that America refused to vote for.

Yes, you did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you did.

As much as I would like to see a good guy win for a change, there simply aren't enough Americans in America to elect one.

I see, that's what you mean. You took it to mean a specific candidate while I was referring a generic "good guy" who could never be more than a hypothetical as long as there aren't enough Americans to actually elect one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see, that's what you mean. You took it to mean a specific candidate while I was referring a generic "good guy" who could never be more than a hypothetical as long as there aren't enough Americans to actually elect one.

Ok, so you don't consider Romney a good guy. How do you feel about the fact that the Tea Party supported him, and Republicans in general?

Do you think that a Republican victory would've furthered your goals?

That's generally true... as the advocates for those items you listed tend to belong more to the left than to the right.

Do you see that as a flaw of the Tea Party, or do you agree with them?

If you don't agree with them, which political movement do you identify with better: the Tea Party or Libertarians?

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so you don't consider Romney a good guy.

Completely good, no. Even Obama is not completely bad either. No ideologically pure candidate exists, because no ideologically pure electorate exists. Both are myths. Romney would have been a relatively better President than Obama is so he got my vote.

How do you feel about the fact that the Tea Party supported him, and Republicans in general?

I'm ok with that because Romney was the guy who had the best chance of defeating Obama. The simple truth is that there are no longer enough Americans in America to elect even a relatively good candidate.

Do you think that a Republican victory would've furthered your goals?

No.

By following Ayn Rand's good advice, I have continued to consistently prosper in my business and to enjoy my life regardless of any political or economic cycles. Rendering the government irrelevant to the quality of your own life is a distinctly American value.

Do you see that as a flaw of the Tea Party, or do you agree with them?

The Tea Party's values of Constitutionally limited government, fiscal responsibility, and free Capitalist markets are all quite close to my view.

If you don't agree with them, which political movement do you identify with better: the Tea Party or Libertarians?

Definitely the Tea Party. The Libertarians only helped Obama to win the election.

Edited by moralist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm ok with that because Romney was the guy who had the best chance of defeating Obama. The simple truth is that there are no longer enough Americans in America to elect even a relatively good candidate.

I happen to agree with you that Romney is a relatively better candidate (by a very small margin, but still). However, he didn't get my vote, because I didn't think that small margin was worth it. I instead just spent my vote on a much better candidate, Gary Johnson.

But, more importantly, my opinion is very much focused on my own situation and interests. I happen to be more interested in the aspects of politics Romney was better on (economic freedom and foreign policy), because they affect me more. But I know other rational Americans (and I'm not referring to some of the Liberals on this board, I'm referring to people who do understand Rand's ideas and the need for freedom on all fronts, including economics), to whom some of the issues Obama is better on (immigration, gay rights and abortion) are more important than to me, and therefor would not consider Romney the better candidate.

Some of those people voted against Romney (so they voted for Obama, the only candidate that could prevent Romney from winning), others voted for Gary like me. I find the notion that they aren't "American" enough to vote the right way absurd. They are much more "American" than most Romney supporters.

The Tea Party's values of Constitutionally limited government, fiscal responsibility, and free Capitalist markets are all quite close to my view.

Agh. You really didn't understand the question?

Definitely the Tea Party. The Libertarians only helped Obama to win the election.

How? The Libertarians campaigned consistently against Obama. Even more so than against Romney. And there is evidence that in several key states (like Colorado) they actually took more votes from Obama than Romney.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They also supported Michelle Bachmann, who narrowly won.

You're right. I was thinking only of the California Tea Party supported candidates.

By the way, have you seen the brilliant Saturday Night Live parody of the Republican Debates with Romney, Bachmann, Paul, Kane, Gingrich, and Perry? Bachmann is absolutely hilarious in it.

Edited by moralist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I happen to agree with you that Romney is a relatively better candidate (by a very small margin, but still).

That's why he got my vote. Although he may have only been slightly better than Obama, he had the best odds of defeating Obama over anyone else running. And those are the operative words: best odds.

However, he didn't get my vote, because I didn't think that small margin was worth it. I instead just spent my vote on a much better candidate, Gary Johnson. But, more importantly, my opinion is very much focused on my own situation and interests. I happen to be more interested in the aspects of politics Romney was better on (economic freedom and foreign policy), because they affect me more. But I know other rational Americans (and I'm not referring to some of the Liberals on this board, I'm referring to people who do understand Rand's ideas and the need for freedom on all fronts, including economics), to whom some of the issues Obama is better on (immigration, gay rights and abortion) are more important than to me, and therefor would not consider Romney the better candidate.

Those are logical reasons which are true to a basic point of view, even though I chose differently. Each individual has a different exposure to government policies simply by how they live their life, and each of us votes accordingly for either our own best interests, the best interests of America, or both if they coincide.

Some of those people voted against Romney (so they voted for Obama, the only candidate that could prevent Romney from winning), others voted for Gary like me. I find the notion that they aren't "American" enough to vote the right way absurd. They are much more "American" than most Romney supporters.

The evidence that there aren't enough Americans in America is the simple fact that Obama won the election. If there were enough, he would have lost. In my opinion, Obama represents values which are antithetical to those on which this country was founded, and the people who live by those same shared values make a plurality large enough to put him into office again.

And I'm ok with this fact of life, because the government isn't America. The Americans are America, and they will continue to enjoy their liberty regardless of the government.

How? The Libertarians campaigned consistently against Obama. Even more so than against Romney. And there is evidence that in several key states (like Colorado) they actually took more votes from Obama than Romney.

Every third party vote cast was one less vote against Obama which helped him to win the election.

Edited by moralist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The evidence that there aren't enough Americans in America is the simple fact that Obama won the election. If there were enough, he would have lost. In my opinion, Obama represents values which are antithetical to those on which this country was founded, and the people who live by those same shared values make a plurality large enough to put him into office again.

And I'm ok with this fact of life, because the government isn't America. The Americans are America, and they will continue to enjoy their liberty regardless of the government.

This doesn't make much sense. If we agree that there is only a slight difference in the political views Obama and Romney, then why is only Obama's values "antithetical to those on which the country was founded."

From what I understand, both support redistribution of wealth - Obama just says it more openly. Romney is for state run healthcare, entitlement programs, the federal reserve, etc.

And the worst part is Romney's logic on most issues: "We're not going to tax the rich, we don't believe in wealth redistribution! The stupidest thing to do will be to raise taxes on the rich" and in the next sentence will say "We have to close tax loopholes for the rich" and then will boast about how it will bring in more revenue -- Outright ignoring the fact that he is effectively doing the same thing as raising taxes.

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have actually contacted the local Tea-Party group here in West Michigan. I was happy to see none of the fundamental religion issues that would have been a no sell. There are certainly some religious people but the group is about economic and Constitutional issues, not social. More importantly it got me on some e-mail listing for current events in Michigan and I cannot understate how much additional information has been made available. Listings for State Congressmen, phone numbers, emails, their votes on current subjects, Bill and vote updates, etc. I thought I was informed but this blew me away.

As an example, last week the House Committee that was supposed to pass the exchange for Obamacare here in Michigan, which would have sent it to the floor then into law sense our Senate already passed it and our Governor has said he would sign it, well that got blocked because enough people turbo called and emailed the offices of key politicians on that committee. Story floating around is that there was a lot of pissed off Lobbyists in Lansing that day. I’m happy to say I was part of that.

I’ll be honest, I was wary since I had strong suspicions when contacting the group but after the election I decided to try something new. At worst I would lose soem time then move on. I’m glad I did. We’ll see how it goes but for now if I can at least help block some nonsense then it is worth being on a few mailing lists. If it goes well then I'll get more involved.

Edited by Spiral Architect
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the worst part is Romney's logic on most issues: "We're not going to tax the rich, we don't believe in wealth redistribution! The stupidest thing to do will be to raise taxes on the rich" and in the next sentence will say "We have to close tax loopholes for the rich" and then will boast about how it will bring in more revenue -- Outright ignoring the fact that he is effectively doing the same thing as raising taxes.

Closing tax loopholes and raising tax rates are not the same thing. Romney's approach would have been much better for the American Capitalists had he been President.

Leaving the lower rates in place, including the capital gains rate, would have encouraged business ventures. And when businesses are encouraged, they make more money, and when they make more money, they pay more taxes.

This bears repeating... There is no such thing as an ideologically pure candidate.

It is the political majority which creates the government they deserve in their own image.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have actually contacted the local Tea-Party group here in West Michigan. I was happy to see none of the fundamental religion issues that would have been a no sell. There are certainly some religious people but the group is about economic and Constitutional issues, not social. More importantly it got me on some e-mail listing for current events in Michigan and I cannot understate how much additional information has been made available. Listings for State Congressmen, phone numbers, emails, their votes on current subjects, Bill and vote updates, etc. I thought I was informed but this blew me away.

As an example, last week the House Committee that was supposed to pass the exchange for Obamacare here in Michigan, which would have sent it to the floor then into law sense our Senate already passed it and our Governor has said he would sign it, well that got blocked because enough people turbo called and emailed the offices of key politicians on that committee. Story floating around is that there was a lot of pissed off Lobbyists in Lansing that day. I’m happy to say I was part of that.

I’ll be honest, I was wary since I had strong suspicions when contacting the group but after the election I decided to try something new. At worst I would lose soem time then move on. I’m glad I did. We’ll see how it goes but for now if I can at least help block some nonsense then it is worth being on a few mailing lists. If it goes well then I'll get more involved.

I'm happy that you experienced the reality of the Tea Party for yourself, instead of believing the hateful fantasies. Our local group operates in a similar manner. No group is ideologically perfect, because everyone in any group is flawed in one way or another, nevertheless each Tea Party member strives in their own way to uphold American values, and as a group to make those values known in the political sphere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every third party vote cast was one less vote against Obama which helped him to win the election.

That's the attitude that's keeping "good candidates" out of American politics. Your hatred of Obama blinds you into thinking nothing's more important than "voting against him".

And, of course, many social libertarians' hatred of Republicans blinds them into thinking that nothing's more important than voting "against Republicans".

In fact, if the two groups voted for someone rather than against the object of their mostly misguided hatred, there would be a viable third party that has the best of both parties.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Closing tax loopholes and raising tax rates are not the same thing. Romney's approach would have been much better for the American Capitalists had he been President.

Leaving the lower rates in place, including the capital gains rate, would have encouraged business ventures. And when businesses are encouraged, they make more money, and when they make more money, they pay more taxes.

I understand they aren't the same. But they are both forms of wealth redistribution, which was my point. Whether it is through higher taxes (as Obama wanted) or by closing the loopholes and taking away deductions (which Romney wanted), they both wanted to take more from the rich.

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the attitude that's keeping "good candidates" out of American politics.

Third party voting keeps the "worst candidates" in American politics.

Your hatred of Obama blinds you into thinking nothing's more important than "voting against him".

It's not voting solely against Obama. I was happy to vote for Mitt Romney because he was a better candidate who had the best chance of defeating Obama. The best guy with the best chance always gets my vote. Ideological purity is a myth.

And, of course, many social libertarians' hatred of Republicans blinds them into thinking that nothing's more important than voting "against Republicans".

I understand. That's why I regard the political spectrum as being a circle, and not a line... with the extreme right and radical left both meeting on the darkside because they share the same standards of behavior.

In fact, if the two groups voted for someone rather than against the object of their mostly misguided hatred, there would be a viable third party that has the best of both parties.

If pigs had wings...

There is a basic principle from which no candidate is exempt. Whoever gets elected to political office is an accurate indicator of the moral values of the political majority who elected them. No candidate will ever be any better than the people who elect him.

And in a broader sense... the nature of government itself is a perfect match for the nature of the majority who created it in their own image... and it will never be any better than it is right now until enough people first become better themselves. And if people continue to get worse, the government will faithfully match their downward spiral turn for turn... just as it is doing right now.

My approach to this fact is to avoid becoming collatoral damage

Edited by moralist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
snip

I feel the need to step in here and remind people about something Rand said "Ones side is right, one side is wrong but the middle is always evil" She strongly opposed the idea of compromise and that's exactly what you're doing. You have joined an organisation that does not represent your views and voted for a candidate who does not hold your ideals. Rather than voting to keep the "evil" Obama out of office by electing by your own admission the slightly less evil Romney. Why not find a candidate who actually represents your views. If you can't then abstain.

Settling for the lesser evil gets no where. You merely encourage the evil. 'True Americans' as you put it would vote for neither as both are the antithesis of the American ideals whether it's freedom of the markets or freedom of your own body. The only way to send the candidates and the party's a message is to stop voting for them. They don't see your vote as someone who only half agrees with them. They see it as your fully fledged support. It is only by voting for those third party candidates against the odds that change ever happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel the need to step in here and remind people about something Rand said "Ones side is right, one side is wrong but the middle is always evil" She strongly opposed the idea of compromise and that's exactly what you're doing. You have joined an organisation that does not represent your views and voted for a candidate who does not hold your ideals. Rather than voting to keep the "evil" Obama out of office by electing by your own admission the slightly less evil Romney.

Yes.

I will always vote for the lesser evil and never for the greater evil. I will never make the best the enemy of the better.

Why not find a candidate who actually represents your views.

Because there is no candidate who completely represents my views. There are only candidates who either are closer to my views, or are farther away.

If you can't then abstain.

That only helps the candidate farther away from my views to win. That not only makes the best the enemy of the better, it makes the best the ally of the worst.

Settling for the lesser evil gets no where. You merely encourage the evil.

That's where we each differ. In an evil world, the lesser evil is always better than the greater evil. My own personal responsibility is to keep the evil outside of my own life so that I don't become collatoral damage.

'True Americans' as you put it would vote for neither as both are the antithesis of the American ideals whether it's freedom of the markets or freedom of your own body.

That all depends on the kind of freedom each of us is seeking. Most people are seeking the freedom to do what is morally wrong when they have always possessed the freedom to do what is morally right.

The only way to send the candidates and the party's a message is to stop voting for them. They don't see your vote as someone who only half agrees with them. They see it as your fully fledged support.

It is only by voting for those third party candidates against the odds that change ever happens.

Third party voting and abstained voting is what elected Obama, and he counted on your help to win.

Everyone is already getting exactly the government they deserve simply by how they are living their own lives, so if you feel that you are not getting the government you deserve, all you need to do is first to change how you are living so that you will deserve a better government.

Edited by moralist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel the need to step in here and remind people about something Rand said "Ones side is right, one side is wrong but the middle is always evil" She strongly opposed the idea of compromise and that's exactly what you're doing.
I don't think you will find actual support of your viewpoint in Rand. I'm not saying you're right or wrong here, just that your reference to Rand is faulty. You quote something abstract by Rand but have you considered what she meant by looking at her more concrete recommendations? For instance, do find similar support from her when you see what she wrote about supporting particular candidates in particular elections?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you will find actual support of your viewpoint in Rand. I'm not saying you're right or wrong here, just that your reference to Rand is faulty. You quote something abstract by Rand but have you considered what she meant by looking at her more concrete recommendations? For instance, do find similar support from her when you see what she wrote about supporting particular candidates in particular elections?

I believe another poster on this site referenced Rand voting for Nixon over McGovern even though she abohred Nixon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the attitude that's keeping "good candidates" out of American politics.

That is only because there are not enough good Americans to elect a good candidate. If there ever are, they will elect a good candidate.

Your hatred of Obama blinds you into thinking nothing's more important than "voting against him".

Since I've never interacted with Obama personally it is not possible to hate him. I voted for Romney simply because he would be a better President than Obama.

And, of course, many social libertarians' hatred of Republicans blinds them into thinking that nothing's more important than voting "against Republicans".
...which helped to elect Obama. There is nothing liberals love more than conservative ideological purists.

In fact, if the two groups voted for someone rather than against the object of their mostly misguided hatred

I voted for Romney because he was the best candidate with the best chance of winning. Note the operative phrase:

"best chance of winning"

When you vote third party against the best candidate with the best chance of winning, you have only helped the worst candidate to win.

there would be a viable third party that has the best of both parties.

Third party candidates were clowns. There is nothing Liberals love more than Conservative third parties because they are allies who help their candidate to win.

Edited by moralist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel the need to step in here and remind people about something Rand said "Ones side is right, one side is wrong but the middle is always evil"

She didn't say that about voting, she said it about ideas. Ayn Rand did support voting for the lesser evil.

I of course voted third party, but not because I'm against voting for the lesser evil (in fact, Gary Johnson wasn't even close to being the perfect candidate). I voted for Gary Johnson because Romney was not a significantly lesser evil, his positions were almost as evil as Obama's (though, as a person, he's much more worthy of admiration than Obama).

Edited by Nicky
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...