Presidential Race 2012 (part 3)

I wrote this a few months ago since I still occasionally hear some of the dim-witted statements which will soon be mentioned, plus I think I failed addressed some of them at all in my previous blog posts on the presidential race.  Finally, I figured that it would still be relevant since the candidates in that election were irrelevant anyways, and defeating a false choice and other problems can happen in many other circumstances and elections.

Completely false paradox

The statement, 'if you do not vote for Romney, then you are voting for Obama'...  Is such an inane statement.  Here is a scenario...  (As a quick lead-in, I am not necessarily trying to draw an analogy between killing someone and politicians.  Also, I thought about an analogy with demons and Satan, it runs along the same line, I decided to just keep the mushroom illustration though.)  You are captured by the government and you are given a choice between eating poisoned mushrooms and poisoned milk toast.   Which do you choose?  They both will taste bad and they will both kill you. The poisoned mushroom is obvious.  It has a sign saying it is a death cap mushroom.  The poisoned milk toast is not quite as obvious.  It only has a sign saying that while it is indeed poisoned, it does not have the same type of poisoning as the death cap mushroom and will be a slower releasing poison.  Which of the two options do you choose?  Poisonous mushroom or poisoned milk toast?

My choice is that it is a completely false choice and paradox and that I would abstain from both. That is when the Republicrats say, Wait, what?  There is no third option, thus your choice is NOT an option.  How dare you do that.  By not choosing to eat the poisoned milk toast you are really choosing to eat the poisoned mushrooms.  Eh?  I did not choose to eat either, because, frankly, both choices stink and will kill me.  There was no statement running through my head like, by not voting for someone thus I am actually voting for the other person.  

And by doing this I am not per se saying that I am smarter than everyone else, nor am I trying to say that I am holier than thou.. I am just saying that compromising from evil A to evil B does not work AT ALL.  Also, in the end I am still forced to eat the poisoned mushrooms by the guards. There is something called a primary.. (At least I think.. Maybe it is just a rumor.)  And in it you can actually choose candidates who are somewhat principled and you can actually tell what they stand for instead of nominating a nominee that is as bad and wishy-washy as milk toast (unless you like milk toast, in which case I should probably have a different analogy).

Anybody but Obama

A good portion of Republicans voted for Romney to be the nominee in the primary, because he was 'anybody but Obama'. They thought he had a chance to beat Obama.  Right...  That worked out really well.  The nominee was anybody but Obama.  Does not mean the nominee had to be better or worse, just that he had to be anybody.  And he was anybody alright...  If the voting populace does not even attempt to hold candidates to standards, then the candidates themselves very likely will not attempt to apply standards for themselves.

Pandering is lying

In politics 'pandering' (see that as going where the wind/public opinion blows and lying to your constituency) happens fairly often.  A candidate realizes that position A is more popular with potential voters than position B, hence he changes his position to appeal to more voters. Romney was and is a genius at pandering. The number of times in which he has changed positions on anything from abortion to taxes has happened close to innumerably.  But, even when the general election came around in 2012, Romney did not really have any truly good positions.  And even IF Romney would have had any good positions, (and no, 'repealing Obamneycare' does not count for various reasons) I still would not have voted for him.. Why?  Because you cannot trust perpetual liars.  Perpetual panderers.  One of the many, many problems with Romney is that he only has positions he does not have convictions.

Who chooses whom?

(This next short topic is sort of irrelevant to Romney and Obama, but I wanted to include it.)  Who owns the US military?  There are various stages as to who controls it, but the true owner of the military is the American people.  For a random example.  Who paid for an American F-35?  The government, duh.  Close, but no banana.  Actually, while the government did do the official purchasing, the people who paid for that F-35 were the American people.  (Technically this is not entirely accurate, since the US is in debt to such a large extent, especially to China, etc... So it might be more accurate to say that the Chinese people paid for the plane.)

President Obama and Governor Romney were both applying to be hired by myself and the rest of the American people.  THEY are the employees, WE are the employers.  Obama and Romney both failed my application assessments miserably.  Thus, neither received any positive recommendation or feedback from myself and I denied their job applications. Sadly, many other people gave their recommendations to Obamney and accepted their job applications.  Why?  Well, many peoples' beliefs and standards are semi-different to vastly different from myself.  And a decent portion of them have a completely different view of the presidency; they view the president as the ultimate boss, while the people are mere subjects or employees.  And that would indeed effectively be the case if America's government included a Monarchical form of rule or dictatorship, but, last time I checked, I think America is supposed to have a presidency.