The people need a clear choice. They will vote for a real Democrat before they vote for a phony Republican.--Badray I guess you didn't see today's CNN poll. 47% of Americans say they will definitely NOT vote for hillary. Only 30% say the same about Rudy. ;) The original essay is about methodology, a flimflam scheme engineered to elect the wildly unpopular hillary by a plurality. You insist on making it about ideology. And by so doing, you demonstrate in real time the precise ingredient necessary for this flimflam to work: The doctrinal purist. The candidate, you say, must meet your rigid requirements, or he is, ipso facto, no better than hillary. Not a very rational argument. Even less rational is your conclusion: Because he is no better than hillary, you will do your part to help him lose and hand the presidency over to hillary. (In a time of peril, no less.)
I wouldn't be so sure if I were you that rigid adherence to ideology is always--or even ever--the moral choice. Satisfying your own moral sensibilities is not the same thing as doing the moral thing. To illustrate, let me end with this hypothetical: Election Day, 2008.
|
fyi
1] I don't watch or listen to CNN.
2] It's a CNN poll. I take it with a grain of salt.
3] Assuming for argument's sake that it is accurate, don't be so sure that it makes your case. I said that people will fight the evil when it's it their face and she is evil. I also said that people would fall for the 'nice' socialist like Rudy, but not necessarily enough people that he'd beat her in a real race because there are plenty of folks like me who will not vote for a socialist.
Look, you only make my point.
Only if you ignore what I said and reiterated above.
The original essay is about methodology, a flimflam scheme engineered to elect the wildly unpopular hillary by a plurality.
Again, if there is a scheme to elect her it is between her and the GOP. If I don't follow your advice, I get Hillary (IF she runs). If I vote for Rudy, I'm not any closer to what I want because I have still have a liberal as president. Tell me again why I should be thrilled with this option.
You insist on making it about ideology.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
And by so doing, you demonstrate in real time the precise ingredient necessary for this flimflam to work: The doctrinal purist.
It is her 'values' that make her evil, and your advice to avoid what you don't want is to vote for someone who holds most of same values. Curious, indeed. Is that like a flu vaccine that gets you sick in the hopes of not getting the flu?
The candidate, you say, must meet your rigid requirements, or he is, ipso facto, no better than hillary. Not a very rational argument.
Well, it would be better if you used my exact words because that is not what I said. I said that a liberal is not acceptable. Maybe you can understand this. A lot of people don't pay attention to the flu, but take getting pneumonia as a serious threat to them. Well, the flu kills as many people each year as pneumonia for the very reason that they don't take it seriously until it's too late, if at all. In our example, Hillary is pneumonia and Rudy is the flu. If we end up with Hillary, people will be more vigilant -- as they were with her husband. Rudy will lull people to sleep -- like Bush -- and all sorts of 'nice' socialism will be imposed on us, for our own good and our safety, doncha know.
Even less rational is your conclusion: Because he is no better than hillary, you will do your part to help him lose and hand the presidency over to hillary. (In a time of peril, no less.)
LOL
See my comments above. Do you know how a president is elected? I'm sure you do, but you are letting your emotion and fear get the best of you.
Last election, Bush lost PA by 120,000 votes. My vote for him didn't help and a vote for a third party wouldn't matter, while another for Kerry wouldn't change a thing -- Bush would have still lost but by 120,001 votes.
Get it? I can vote my conscious and sleep well to boot.
I wouldn't be so sure if I were you that rigid adherence to ideology is always--or even ever--the moral choice. Satisfying your own moral sensibilities is not the same thing as doing the moral thing.
I'm beginning to understand. If I compromise my principles and vote for some evil, I'll be happy and the world will be better, is that right? Where does it end? When do I get to quit compromising?
With that kind of thinking, no wonder this country is going to Hell in a handcart. I feel sorry for you. I really do. To live in such fear of doing the right thing is sad.
To illustrate, let me end with this hypothetical:
Election Day, 2008. It's hillary vs. Rudy. What do you do?
I've already told you. I vote for a third party. You are asking if I want to be beat to death or shot. Why do I care?