XCR Forum banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,045 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The coverage of the presidential election is designed to be a grand distraction. This is not new, but this year, it’s more so than ever.

Pretending that a true difference exists between the two major candidates is a charade of great proportion. Many who help to perpetuate this myth are frequently unaware of what they are doing and believe that significant differences actually do exist. Indeed, on small points there is the appearance of a difference. The real issues, however, are buried in a barrage of miscellaneous nonsense and endless pontifications by robotic pundits hired to perpetuate the myth of a campaign of substance.

The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice. The real goal of the campaign is to distract people from considering the real issues.

Influential forces, the media, the government, the privileged corporations and moneyed interests see to it that both party’s candidates are acceptable, regardless of the outcome, since they will still be in charge. It’s been that way for a long time. George Wallace was not the first to recognize that there’s “not a dime’s worth of difference” between the two parties. There is, though, a difference between the two major candidates and the candidates on third-party tickets and those running as independents.

The two parties and their candidates have no real disagreements on foreign policy, monetary policy, privacy issues, or the welfare state. They both are willing to abuse the Rule of Law and ignore constitutional restraint on Executive Powers. Neither major party champions free markets and private-property ownership.

Those candidates who represent actual change or disagreement with the status quo are held in check by the two major parties in power, making it very difficult to compete in the pretend democratic process. This is done by making it difficult for third-party candidates to get on the ballots, enter into the debates, raise money, avoid being marginalized, or get fair or actual coverage. A rare celebrity or a wealthy individual can, to a degree, overcome these difficulties.

The system we have today allows a President to be elected by as little as 32% of the American people, with half of those merely voting for the “lesser of two evils”. Therefore, as little as 16% actually vote for a president. No wonder when things go wrong, anger explodes. A recent poll shows that 60% of the American people are not happy with the two major candidates this year.

This system is driven by the conviction that only a major party candidate can win. Voters become convinced that any other vote is a “wasted” vote. It’s time for that conclusion to be challenged and to recognize that the only way not to waste one’s vote is to reject the two establishment candidates and join the majority, once called silent, and allow the voices of the people to be heard.


We cannot expect withdrawal of troops from Iraq or the Middle East with either of the two major candidates. Expect continued involvement in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Georgia. Neither hints of a non-interventionist foreign policy. Do not expect to hear the rejection of the policy of supporting the American world empire. There will be no emphasis in protecting privacy and civil liberties and the constant surveillance of the American people. Do not expect any serious attempt to curtail the rapidly expanding national debt. And certainly, there will be no hint of addressing the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationship with big banks and international corporations and the politicians.

There is only one way that these issues can get the attention they deserve: the silent majority must become the vocal majority.

This message can be sent to our leaders by not participating in the Great Distraction—the quadrennial campaign and election of an American President without a choice. Just think of how much of an edge a Vice President has in this process, and he or she is picked by a single person—the party’s nominee. This was never intended by the Constitution.

Since a principled non-voter sends a message, we must count them and recognize the message they are sending as well. The non-voters need to hold their own “election” by starting a “League of Non-voters” and explain their principled reasons for opting out of this charade of the presidential elective process. They just might get a bigger membership than anyone would guess.

Write-in votes should not be discouraged, but the electoral officials must be held accountable and make sure the votes are counted. But one must not be naïve and believe that under today’s circumstances one has a chance of accomplishing much by a write-in campaign.

The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two-party system, which in reality is a one-party system with no possible chance for the changes to occur which are necessary to solve our economic and foreign policy problems. This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment principled candidates—Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and possibly others. (listed alphabetically)

Yes, these individuals do have strong philosophic disagreements on various issues, but they all stand for challenging the status quo—those special interest who control our federal government. And because of this, on the big issues of war, civil liberties, deficits, and the Federal Reserve they have much in common. People will waste their vote in voting for the lesser of two evils. That can’t be stopped overnight, but for us to have an impact we must maximize the total votes of those rejecting the two major candidates.

For me, though, my advice—for what it’s worth—is to vote! Reject the two candidates who demand perpetuation of the status quo and pick one of the alternatives that you have the greatest affinity to, based on the other issues.

A huge vote for those running on principle will be a lot more valuable by sending a message that we’ve had enough and want real change than wasting one’s vote on a supposed lesser of two evils.


Original: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=483
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,839 Posts
It's too late in the game, and Paul should be smart enough to realize that. I'm not a fan of McCain and I really dislike Obama, but throwing a vote away in such a tight election is insane considering the end result: We lose, Obama wins.

We elect someone every four years, so it isnt like Paul, Nader and whomever else doesnt have plenty of time to get out their message, raise money, and gain momentum for the general election. Being a spoiler in the last 50 or so days isnt going to get Paul or anyone else outside the system elected. It will however hand Obama the election
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,045 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
It's too late in the game, and Paul should be smart enough to realize that. I'm not a fan of McCain and I really dislike Obama, but throwing a vote away in such a tight election is insane considering the end result: We lose, Obama wins.

We elect someone every four years, so it isnt like Paul, Nader and whomever else doesnt have plenty of time to get out their message, raise money, and gain momentum for the general election. Being a spoiler in the last 50 or so days isnt going to get Paul or anyone else outside the system elected. It will however hand Obama the election
Did you even read the statement?

Also, Ron Paul is not running for president, he suspended his campaign months ago ::)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,839 Posts
Did you even read the statement?

Also, Ron Paul is not running for president, he suspended his campaign months ago ::)
Did you read my response? I didnt say Paul was running. Very clearly, writing in Paul, Nader or anyone else of their ilk, or outright abstaining, gets Obama one step closer to being elected.

Proceed how you see fit; voting is a private affair. But if someone lives in a battleground state and writes in Paul or Nader or whomever and Obama wins, they need to STFU when they cant buy hi cap mags or black rifles, and they get ass raped on taxes.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,045 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Proceed how you see fit; voting is a private affair. But if someone lives in a battleground state and writes in Paul or Nader or whomever and Obama wins, they need to STFU when they cant buy hi cap mags or black rifles, and they get ass raped on taxes.
I haven't seen any, even remotely convincing, arguments that McCain will not raise taxes and will not ban hi cap mags or black rifles.

If you know something that I don't, please let me know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,839 Posts
Proceed how you see fit; voting is a private affair. But if someone lives in a battleground state and writes in Paul or Nader or whomever and Obama wins, they need to STFU when they cant buy hi cap mags or black rifles, and they get ass raped on taxes.
I haven't seen any, even remotely convincing, arguments that McCain will not raise taxes and will not ban hi cap mags or black rifles.

If you know something that I don't, please let me know.
It's possible McCain might do a lot of things. However, Obama has been on record plenty of times on what he WILL do. Throw away votes and 3rd party groups will be completely pointless.

Yeah, it would be nice for someone outside the system to step up and lead the country in a new direction. I just dont understand why they cant get their shit together long before the election and make a real attempt at being effective.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,200 Posts
A vote for a Third Party Candidate is a vote FOR OBAMA. IF Obama makes it gun owners will be in DEEP S**T. Raising taxes during these time will set us back 50 years. :2cents:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,533 Posts
Yeah!
Voting for the guy that says he agrees with handgun bans is STUPID.

Voting for the guy that says he's going to 'close the gunshow loopholes' - and has tried doing so before - is STUPID.

Voting for the guy that says the batf needs to be abolished and that we WILL return to a Constitutional Republic under his administration - that's SMART.

Unless the SMART choice isn't one of the "big two" - in which case it's STUPID, and SMART people vote for the STUPID candidate, to keep the OTHER STUPID candidate out.

DUH?!?!

Vote how you want to.
But when you get "the lesser of the evils", and you WILL get EVIL, when "mcstain wins, they [the people that voted for that evil] need to STFU when they cant buy hi cap mags or black rifles, and they get ass raped on taxes."

Remember - the only STANDING 'gun bans' on the record since GCA68 are the 'closing' of the Class 3 books by REAGAN and the import ban from the elder BUSH - both republicrats.

Now tell me how good republicrats are on banning guns.

Taxes? Remember "Read my lips, no new taxes"? I do. And remember the biggest tax hike in history [at that time] under Reagan? I do.

You can vote for evil -even the 'lesser of the evils' - but remember what you're ASKING FOR.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,045 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Thanks for stating it so obviously and eloquently Bravo!
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top