Nobamney 2012!Submitted by Keimh3reg Peh2u Meg on Wed, 08/29/2012 - 01:17
ITS ALL A GAME ANYWAYS
I hereby endorse (not that it is worth much) anyone but Obama and Romney. It really doesn’t matter who the person is that one uses to fill in that blank, because they are not going to win even under favorable circumstances. The same goes for if one chooses to leave it blank. All votes, or non-votes, that are rooted in the dictates of one’s conscience and principles are of equal validity. The only truly wasted vote is a conscious decision for one or the other of these two fascists for exactly that reason: a fascist is a fascist by any other name, Republican or Democrat. Of these vote-wasters, only those that decide at the last second for whom, of the two fascists, to pull the lever are wasting to a smaller degree, because it is only worth the time they spent thinking about it. Only of the others, who actually spent time, perhaps months, years even, rationalizing away the fascist qualities of one or the other major candidate, can it be said that their vote was a complete and total waste. These people are the most blatant fools in an electoral system which happens to be jam-packed with them.
But I am not here to castigate sheep (though there is more of that below) or take a look at the similarities between Obama and Romney, because these have been done all too often almost anywhere you care to look in the libertarian blogosphere, ad nauseam. Besides, once we throw out every position Romney has or has had contradicting or contradicted by another position he has or has had, there is nothing left for us to look at. It’s not even comparing apples (Obama) and oranges (Romney) anymore, because all we are left with is the rotten, worm-eaten apple. What I am going to do is get into the more pragmatic side of things, having already accepted the premise that Romney and Obama are the same, though I am sure that this too has been done before.
WHEN THE CHIPS ARE DOWN
If Obama gets reelected, it’s four more years of Democratic fascism until we have another chance, perhaps an even better one than in 2012, to put a principled leader in the White House. But given the GOP’s track record and the LP’s lack of influence, I wouldn’t count on it.
If Romney gets elected, it’s four to eight more years of Republican fascism, which will then be followed by another four to eight years of Democratic fascism. Those arguing to elect Romney because we can’t handle four more years of tyranny are essentially arguing for eight to sixteen more instead.
There is little doubt in my mind that whomever the next president is, he will be unable (and in most cases unwilling) to prevent the impending fiscal and monetary collapse. If it is a Democratic president, more ammo for Republicans, be they genuine conservatives or corrupt establishmentarians. And if it is a Republican president, more ammo for the “progressive” Democrats who brought us Obama in the wake of Bush’s (whether it is directly attributable to him or not) housing bubble collapse and subsequent recession.
This latter scenario would not be so much a problem if the Republican that got in there actually did the right things before taking the heat for the collapse he did not cause. But such is not the case with a Romney presidency.
Whereas a Ron Paul presidency, or even a Newt “fundamental, but sleazy” Gingrich, Rick “uhhh…uhhh” Perry, Michelle “gives me a migraine” Bachmann, or Herman “would you like to pay for that pizza with fractional reserve fiat monopoly notes…okay, that will be $9.99” Cain presidency*, given the right context and the right pressures and the right advisors would still get the blame, but might at least have done something right in the meantime. Regardless, these latter four Republican’s foreign policies would be enough to make me sit the election out were any one of them to be the nominee. Which brings us back to Romney.
UPPING THE ANTE
Romney’s foreign policy will likely be worse (though substantially the same) than Obama’s. Not just because almost every new president is automatically worse in every sphere or endeavor than the last, regardless of what they truly say or believe or attempt to do, but because he is, by his own admission, very hawkish. He has been critical of Obama where the president is deemed weak on foreign policy and has even praised Obama on the rare occasion in which the president is seen as doing things the proper neocon way.
There are those out there that AGREE that Romney and Obama are virtually the same on their policies. I mean besides George Soros, the socialism-supporting crony-capitalist who endorsed them both. They tend to go with Romney because “at least he is not a radical”. And what in the hell is that even supposed to mean? I’ll tell you what it means.
They want an acquisitive, confused liar to take away their liberties more than they do an ideological, narcissistic liar, which really is no more than a matter of taste. They would rather be stabbed in the back in the dead of night than face a frontal attack in broad daylight that is at least defensible against. They want to vote for the guy they feel less threatened by, for reasons that are not sound, so that they can sit back and pretend everything is fine for another four years. They are not emotionally or mentally stable enough to follow their own conscience and judgement. They can’t handle short term deprivation for long term yield. A confusing mixture of subjectivity, fear, laziness, self-doubt, and low impulse control. That’s what it means!
*Sorry, Rick Santorum, your forehead is just too shiny to ever be president.
The "links edition" of this is found here: