Kate87 Posted November 8, 2012 Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 (edited) Consider: Romney wears magic underpants. Romney is a statist in the same style as George W Bush. Romney is a liar (he flip flops on all his positions). All of these points are diametrically opposed to a vote consistent with Objectivism. Can you write a similar list for Obama? Yes. Obama believes in the same magic desert preacher as Romney (but omits the more idiotic position of sacred underwear). Obama win. Just. Obama is also a statist. But Romney being a Bush style statist (talk capitalism, enact statism) is worse from an Objectivist prospective because it gives Capitalism a bad name. Obama win because at least he is honest in his statism. Obama sticks to his principles (even if you disagree with him he doesn't flip-flop and lie like Romney). Obama win. Final score from an Objectivist perspective: 3-0 Obama win. So why did a lot of Objectivists support and vote for Romney? Edited November 8, 2012 by Kate87 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reidy Posted November 8, 2012 Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 Your second and third points about Obama are easily seen to be inaccurate. He talks capitalism, with frequent mention of free markets, while practicing statism. Same-sex marriage, halving the deficit, closing Guantanamo and keeping federal hands off marijuana in the states that have allowed it, are all examples of the dreaded flip-flop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted November 8, 2012 Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 romney 2 obama won Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kate87 Posted November 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 Hi Reidy, Just edited my second point by inserting "Romney" at the start of the sentence. Sorry I wasn't clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted November 8, 2012 Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 The candidates' positions are secondary to the voting public's. (sheeple) softwareNerd 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted November 8, 2012 Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 All of these points are diametrically opposed to a vote consistent with Objectivism. Objectivism only has one thing to say on how someone should fight against thuggery: morality ends where a gun begins. If something prevents even a single act of force against me, it's consistent with Objectivism. That invalidates everything you said. Voting against someone like Obama is subject only to practical evaluation. If a vote for Romney prevents an act of force from being perpetrated against me, I have the moral right to vote for Romney. The only reason why I didn't is because I couldn't think of anything significant that would be prevented. But others might have. Romney doesn't have to be an Objectivist to prevent some of the things Liberals want to accomplish. In fact, Republicans just like Romney have been preventing such things for the past two years, and they will continue to prevent them for the next two (and hopefully four). All you need to do to figure that out is take a look at the Democratic and White House proposals that never came to be in the past two years: the list is long and horrifying. Obama believes in the same magic desert preacher as Romney (but omits the more idiotic position of sacred underwear). Obama win. Just. Yeah, the finer points of Romney's particular brand of mysticism are almost as idiotic as they are unimportant compared to taxation, fascist financial regulations, socialized health-care and crippling debt. utabintarbo 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted November 8, 2012 Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 The candidates' positions are secondary to the voting public's. (sheeple) Please don't use "sheeple". 1. It's not a word. 2. It makes you sound like Alex Jones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted November 8, 2012 Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 Don't forget health-care is an euphemism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted November 8, 2012 Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 Please don't use "sheeple". 1. It's not a word. 2. It makes you sound like Alex Jones. it's still apt day two post election , in a week i willl refrain from use Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted November 8, 2012 Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 (edited) Final score from an Objectivist perspective: 3-0 Obama win. So why did a lot of Objectivists support and vote for Romney? For the record, at least around here, CrowEpistemologist argued similar points you're pointing out, and I agreed with much of it even, personally. For me, the difference is marginal, but in general, I vote according to a position on abortion, that is, opposing anyone who would make abortion illegal if given the chance. In the long-run, I'd bet most people around here would say both Romney and Obama are more harm than good. Do you want to drive off a cliff or collide head on with a train? You're gonna crash either way. Edited November 8, 2012 by Eiuol ttime 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted November 8, 2012 Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 it's still apt day two post election , in a week i willl refrain from use Please, make a single post, there is a lot of clutter when you can just click edit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted November 8, 2012 Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 Please don't use "sheeple". 1. It's not a word. 2. It makes you sound like Alex Jones. number 2 should say when I see the word sheeple it reminds of a man named xyz, I don't realize I was using his venacular, I had to google him the planet guy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted November 9, 2012 Report Share Posted November 9, 2012 Please don't use "sheeple". 1. It's not a word. 2. It makes you sound like Alex Jones. I wonder if Alex Jones picked that up from pirated Mark Scott shows. Mark Scott was a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djcdnCmZw6o. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeatherFall Posted November 9, 2012 Report Share Posted November 9, 2012 The portmanteau is a bit overused, but I kind of like it. dream_weaver 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.