Remember, it's illusion of choice...

[bullit]

UNFY...time for my soapbox and meandering rambling, so here goes....as I alluded to in my post(s) we are voting for the proverbial "lesser of two evils".  It is what it is. I'm tired of it after nigh 25 years +.  I say the following as am example being a former Naval Officer.  John McCain is a war hero.  John Kerry (who served in Vietnam) is a war hero. Bob Dole is a war hero.  Bob Kerrey is a hero (and one of two CMOH winners I've had the privilege of meeting ((Gen Joe Foss being the other)).  Two Repubicans and two Demoncrats to keep my comments fair.....That being said, NONE of the aforementioned except Gen Joe are worth a darn as elected officials.  Fate is what made them heroes, but certainly has/had no bearing on there abilities in office other than being a lifetime politician.  Being a Native Texican, "W" was an AWESOME Governor (as well as Rick Perry who is better than Romney, but I digress).  However, "W" was a good President who declined into mediocrity.  I still think history will vindicate many of his actions. 
I say all of this because BHO is not something we can continue to have as POTUS.  He has accomplished nothing in life other than elected office and obtained a law degree.  I take umbrage as a business owner, doctor and veteran at a man who seeks to tread on the very freedoms I've obtained and helped defend (along with my dad and both grandfathers). I am being assaulted daily by mindless insanity of rules and regulations that increase exponentially.  Many of my colleagues are quiting or retiring early as they are tired of the crap.  To top it off, we are told our employees should benefit EQUALLY from the blood, sweat and tears WE have expended in becoming successful.  To that end, I am NOT the band leader for Romney by any sense of the word.  However, he is by far the best compared to Ron Paul (don't get me started on what you don't understand about him having experienced him living in my former home state) or any of our other choices.  Romney is pro-business, he is pro-military, he is pro-OIL, he is pro-2nd Amendment, he is pro-life, and he is pro-FREEDOM.  Does he have major faults IMHO?  You betcha.  Are the MA gun laws perfect under his tenure? No...but they were certainly improved (similiar to our steadily improved CHP laws here in Nebraska i.e. one step at a time in a positive direction). Do the alternatives in this election fair better for my life experiences and where I would like to see this nation go?  Not a chance.  And for what it is worth I feel the same about Deb Fisher.  I am WHOLLY supportive of her, but feel we had a better choice in Bruning.  Again, they all have skeletons.  In conclusion,Ii celebrate you freedom to express your opinions here and encourage you to excercise such at the ballot box.  To those who don't vote...stick your opinions in your ear.   Now I probably in no way addressed your post but at least I feel better and that is what counts in my world

[unfy]

Bullit!

Ya got wishes / feelings for Romney and hope to how he turns out to be (I do assume Romney will get the election btw). I really do hope that he turns out better than his platform and history have made him out to be but all evidence is pointing contrary from what I can see .

Most others have similar wishes... but... as ya said, ya haven't really addressed the issue.

Ya did bring up some points, which I'll just pick at hehe.

1) Pro-business.  Hopefully.  Having built a successful business, you'd hope that he's pro-any-size business.  His tenure as governor is a bit muddled in that regard (see: using 'fees' instead of 'taxes').  Unemployment numbers (if you believe them) during his tenure as governor weren't exactly great either (not that those can be placed squarely on his shoulders).  There are a few things that could be brought up as well but they're mostly tangential.

2) Pro-military.  Sadly, pro war mongering.  As far as military spending, I've pointed out earlier that looking at military spending tables / graphs that there's not some huge decline or something under Obama.

3) pro-OIL:  energy! agreed

4) he is pro-2nd Amendment.  on really ?  are you sure ? for a man that joined the NRA just prior to an election running season and didn't own a firearm... and you've got the above video clip... i'm finding this hard to believe.  I have another source that I'm unable to find a source for so can't mention it .

5) he is pro-life.  Is he ? are you sure ? He's been pro-choice before (as early as 2002 mind you).  And he's had to clarify his position recently due to some flubs ?

6) he is pro-FREEDOM.  In what manner ? Allegedly so is Obama.  Freedom to have gun control, freedom to have gov't run health care, freedom to send our kids to die on foreign soil sticking our nose where it doesn't belong, freedom to be held indefinitely in prison without trial,  etc etc etc ?

a) experience (obama just a short term lawyer + politician).  see, that's a fine argument if they're running in the primaries seeking their same party nomination (cough).


PS - do appreciate the additional insight  ... and I do agree that regulations need to disappear.  'congress shall make law', not some appointed member of some committee free to churn out memos that are effectively law (they set rules, and incur a penalty... sounds like law to me???).

I'm hoping that someone can convince me to vote Romney.  I want to believe, I do.  But I don't and most responses I get tend to be 'anyone but' or regurgitation without research .

A gut feeling is fine for choosing who to vote for, but does little in convincing others.  That's not to say that when 'old joe says something, it carries merit' doesnt apply.. but... needing more heh.


Due to NDAA stuff, I can't vote for our incumbents.  (insert curse words here).  I have some qualms with Fischer as well . 

Bruning ? We've (my employer that is) recently been to the NE Supreme Court.  Not particularly fond of the guy hehehehehe.  Personal bias abounds! Anyone But Bruning! ... sorry... hehehehe.

[wallace11bravo]

I pursue perfection, and in that pursuit, there is no room for compromises or the lesser of two evils. Had I gone with the lesser of two evils, or just good enough, in my previous occupation, I likely would not be here to write this. I refuse to be motivated by fear into voting for Romney.

I disowned the republican party after the "old guard" fiscal conservatives were overrun by theocrats.  I wandered around aimlessly for a little while (politically speaking) until I stumbled across some libertarian literature. It was love at first site.

Everything was how it should be. Minimum government, maximum rights, separation of church and state, legalize drugs, gay rights, prostitution, get rid of affirmative action, blah blah blah. I was a libertarian my whole life and just never knew it.

Now, I'm sure it is not for everyone, but had I taken a serious look at it years ago, I never would have claimed myself as a republican, simply because I am not.

"In game theory, voting for the lesser of two evils always leads to more evil. You can do that mathematically."

If a libertarian candidate can get 5%, just 5%, of the vote, the two party system is gone. And presidential election will no longer be the shiniest of two turds.

[unfy]

PS

Thanks guys!  This thread has been far more civilized than I could ever have hoped for.

[CitizenClark]

I pursue perfection, and in that pursuit, there is no room for compromises or the lesser of two evils. Had I gone with the lesser of two evils, or just good enough, in my previous occupation, I likely would not be here to write this. I refuse to be motivated by fear into voting for Romney.

I disowned the republican party after the "old guard" fiscal conservatives were overrun by theocrats.  I wandered around aimlessly for a little while (politically speaking) until I stumbled across some libertarian literature. It was love at first site.

Everything was how it should be. Minimum government, maximum rights, separation of church and state, legalize drugs, gay rights, prostitution, get rid of affirmative action, blah blah blah. I was a libertarian my whole life and just never knew it.

Now, I'm sure it is not for everyone, but had I taken a serious look at it years ago, I never would have claimed myself as a republican, simply because I am not.

"In game theory, voting for the lesser of two evils always leads to more evil. You can do that mathematically."

If a libertarian candidate can get 5%, just 5%, of the vote, the two party system is gone. And presidential election will no longer be the shiniest of two turds.

Heh, I ran as an LP candidate in 2002 and 2006 down in Alabama. Unfortunately, I was the only LP candidate on the ballot in Alabama in 2006.

[unfy]

Still nothing?

[metaldoc]

Ok, I've hesitated to enter this or any political discussion this year but I'm going to throw in my two cents worth.  To those deriding those who vote for the lesser of two evils and dismissing that as a valid reason, I submit there are times when that indeed is what it comes down to.

There are times when it is necessary to take a stand for what is right.  No one is likely to argue with that.  So, what is wrong with making a stand against what is wrong?

While it would be nice if the choice between candidates was just that simple, it seldom is.  This is a case where either candidate is not a good choice IMO. 

The current president has demonstrated either by action or inaction, an attitude of disdain for the Constitution, for veterans, for morality, and for the basic liberties of this countries citizens.  He is consistently selling out our country.

If one looks to history, the US is marching step in step with the process seen in Germany as Hitler rose to power.  Look it up... it's sobering.

I would like to be able to vote an ideal.  But in some cases that is like telling a bleeding victim to wait for care because it would be more ideal to have someone better trained care for them.  Common sense says you do what you have to at that moment to save the victim.

IMO, our country is bleeding to death and I will cast my vote where it is most likely to stop the guy causing the bleeding.

The time to work on bring a third party candidate to the forefront is BEFORE the elections.  Every election I hear the idealist complain of having to vote for the lesser of two evils.  IT'S TOO LATE then!!!   Get a viable candidate underway as soon as this election is over... if it's not to late.

[kozball]

Well said Doc.

[unfy]

If one looks to history, the US is marching step in step with the process seen in Germany as Hitler rose to power.  Look it up... it's sobering.

And thus, Godwin's law comes into effect and this thread's usefulness is now at a steady decline or over with .

The time to work on bring a third party candidate to the forefront is BEFORE the elections.  Every election I hear the idealist complain of having to vote for the lesser of two evils.  IT'S TOO LATE then!!!   Get a viable candidate underway as soon as this election is over... if it's not to late.

Pay attention to the republican convention or media handling of Paul any?  Even if you weren't a RP supporter, there's stench about it in it's entirety.  There's plenty of controversy concerning the media and party's treatment of Doc Paul that I won't get into.  Needless to say, it's not amusing and beyond the scope of this topic.


Also, I've not been campaigning for anyone in particular, I've been looking for someone to show me several differences between Romney and Obama.  There is a lot of hate for Obama here, which I concur with - but no one seems to be able to show me how Romney is different.

If they're not different, then why would I vote for either one ?  If you're voting 'anyone but obama', but can't offer platform differences with the guy you're choosing to vote for... then you're still voting for more of the same aren't you ?  A choice between Fat Tony vs Big Tony ?

I'm sure people here aren't wanting more of the same, God knows I don't.  And everyone seems to be able to tell me why we don't need more of it.  So tell me why Romney ISN'T more of the same ?  Where are the differences ?

[00BUCK]

I am so sick of hearing, "a vote for anyone but Romney is a vote for Obama."  If anything it's the percentage of voters that are voting for a candidate just because they are not the other guy when there is another candidate they would actually prefer that are making this the case.  I don't know about anyone else but I will be voting for the candidate I feel will be best fit as president, which I don't think is Romney or Obama.  If Obama get's re-elected it will be the fault of the percentage of the population that isn't voting for the candidate they feel best fit, and instead voting for the "lesser of two evils" as many say.  I know it won't be the fault of my vote.  Especially in Nebraska   

A single trick pony like Ron Paul CAN'T win. Show me a candidate worth voting for on his or her merits and I'll be happy to support him / her. Since there isn't one - I have to defeat Obama - Those who vote for a candidate with ZERO chance of winning are giving the incumbent the vote. It matters not if you are sick of hearing it - it's the cold hard truth.

[Randy]

+1 for OOBUCK

It cannot be stated any simpler.

[CitizenClark]

A single trick pony like Ron Paul CAN'T win.

How is Ron Paul a "single trick pony"? He is good on monetary policy, economic liberty/property rights, individual civil liberties including gun rights, foreign policy, voluntary charity vs. tax-funded welfare, etc.

Show me a candidate worth voting for on his or her merits and I'll be happy to support him / her. Since there isn't one - I have to defeat Obama - Those who vote for a candidate with ZERO chance of winning are giving the incumbent the vote. It matters not if you are sick of hearing it - it's the cold hard truth.

It isn't true at all. A vote for a losing third party candidate isn't the equivalent of a vote for the winning candidate. It is more like not voting at all, really, since voting for a sure loser means by definition that in no case will your vote count towards a potential winner. It isn't quite like abstaining, though, because you've formally registered your dissent (for whatever satisfaction that offers) rather than sending a signal that could be interpreted as apathy or acquiescence, and depending on your state's ballot access laws, you may by casting a third party vote help that party avoid the expense of ballot access petitioning in the next election cycle, thus allowing party resources to be dedicated to programs that actually get the party's message out in front of people. The Prohibition Party largely achieved its policy objectives and played a role in getting a federal constitutional amendment passed without ever electing more than a handful of candidates under their banner.

[DaveB]

If Romney doesn't win this election, it may be the last one. Little o and his executive order pen will change all we have ever known to a Hitleresque form of government before 2016.

A vote for anyone but Romney will be like overcoming two votes for little o.

[unfy]

edit:

I think I'm done with this thread.  I've been told that my vote doesn't matter, or that I'm voting for a policy that I'm not... yet this thread is 3 or 4 days old and we've come up with maybe 2 differences between the two.

Therefore, to return the insult, I'll just say this: y'all have proven that they share the same policies, and by voting for either one of them, you are wanting to continue those policies.  I'll gladly choose to vote to NOT continue these policies.


Who knows, maybe Romney will pull the biggest change in history and become a Sowell or Friedman after he wins.  Here's hoping.

[cckyle]

A single trick pony like Ron Paul CAN'T win. Show me a candidate worth voting for on his or her merits and I'll be happy to support him / her. Since there isn't one - I have to defeat Obama - Those who vote for a candidate with ZERO chance of winning are giving the incumbent the vote. It matters not if you are sick of hearing it - it's the cold hard truth.

Look up candidates for this election, I guarantee you will find one with more/better merits than Romney.  Personally I feel there are more than one that have more/better merits than Romney.  Why do all of these candidates have zero chance of winning?  Because too many believe they have zero chance of winning and choose not to vote for someone they may rather see in office.  This is the mindset that will keep the two major parties with a stranglehold on our elections, and will keep you voting for the lesser of two evils for elections to come.  What else can you expect?  That is the cold hard truth. 

So first it was voting for anyone but Romney was giving a vote for Obama, and now it's two votes for Obama.  Come on.  Vote how you want to, and I will vote how I want.  You are unlikely to sway anyone voting for a third party to vote for Romney by telling them their vote will go to Obama.  They have likely already decided not to vote for the lesser of two and evils and thus are of a different voting "mindset".  To say if I don't vote for Romney I am voting for Obama is simply untrue.  With the current election system it doesn't matter who I vote for in Nebraska my vote will essentially go to Romney anyways.  Popular vote doesn't mean anything.  When it comes down to the bottom line if you vote for Obama in Nebraska your vote will go to Romney.  So if I vote for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or any of the other number of candidates my vote will go to Romney.  I would put money on it that 100% of the votes in Nebraska WILL go to Romney.  So in the end how can you say my vote will go to Obama?  You can't. 

[metaldoc]

Well Unfy, before you bow completely out, let me say I do understand your frustration and understand what you're saying.  Cckyle is expressing much the same sentiment.  As far as policy goes MAYBE  there isn't the clear cut difference we'd like to see.  Yeah, no doubt there are better candidates. 

But, what the rest of us are saying is that right now we are sitting behind a boulder with no place to run, being shot at by a guy on a building.  We have one chance to take that guy out and that is with our vote (which may admittedly mean little in Nebraska) and you're asking what brand of ammo he's using.  We don't care, we're just under fire and want to stop the shooter. 

Maybe the new guy would start shooting too, but one thing is certain... if the current guy is re-elected, his weapons will become much more deadly.   He has to be stopped FIRST!!!   

I know that isn't your philosophy and in the end, I am just glad you are as concerned about the direction of our country as we all are and that you will vote.  Other than that, we'll have to agree to disagree... nothing I'm going to get mad at you about.

[FarmerRick]

I don't like our choices either, but I will be voting for who I think can most help correct the unsustainable path our country is currently on. 

[bullit]

UNFY....are you secretly "Armed and Humerous" who has been banned from this site in the past and recently left on his own accord   Hee Hee Hee.....

[NE Bull]

Well said Doc,  As I put it to folks at work. While we can not say with any certainty what Romney has in store for this country and how he will react to any given situation, We DO know what Obama has done and plans to do and we have a pretty good hold on how he thinks.  I personally would trade the know bad for a unknown. If that don't work out, there's another election in 4 years. 

[unfy]

UNFY....are you secretly "Armed and Humerous" who has been banned from this site in the past and recently left on his own accord   Hee Hee Hee.....

LOL!!!  I remember A&H .  And no, I'm not him.


I should have snapped at those who started to edge this topic towards who we may or may not be voting for or theories about how voting works.  Similarly, should have snipped at those expressing opinions of Doc Paul or others.  This is supposed to be about policy differences between Romney and Obama.  Not that those of us who aren't voting for Romney are stupidly throwing our vote away, nor if those voting for Romney are stupidly expecting anything different than we've had for the past four years.


Importantly, this does need to be addressed:

I would put money on it that 100% of the votes in Nebraska WILL go to Romney.

Obama got 41% of the vote (452,979 vs 333,319) in NE in 2008.  NE has two large cities that tend to vote Democrat.  Don't forget about that.


If it matters.... I've asked for 5 differences, and we've come up with 2 (maybe 3?).  I can offer a slough of similarities covering big issues if it'd help the discussion .