Betsy Speicher

FINAL Presidential Poll for 2012

FINAL Presidential Poll for 2012   17 votes

  1. 1. If the 2012 Presidential Election were being held today, who would you vote for or support?

    • Gary Johnson
      0
    • Barack Obama
      0
    • Mitt Romney
      14
    • Another candidate
      1
    • Would not vote
      0
  2. 2. Who would you NEVER vote for or support?

    • Gary Johnson
      2
    • Barack Obama
      15
    • Mitt Romney
      0
  3. 3. Who do you think will win?

    • Gary Johnson
      0
    • Barack Obama
      6
    • Mitt Romney
      9

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

84 posts in this topic

Why do you say that? Everything that is done by a given government can be undone by another. Germany came back from Nazism, and the Baltic countries came back with a bang from a generation of Stalinism. Surely the American people can roll back 8 years of Obama. We will not die in the next 4 years if Obama is elected. This is ludicrous.

Only because the US as we know it still existed. Europe is decidedly statist and is being conquered by Islam. If the US becomes an EU style welfare state with recipient voters locking the welfare party in place permanently, there will be non one left to bail you out. Switzerland or Singapore won't do the trick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're comparing what will happen under Obama with the world as it should be if rational capitalism was the prevailing paradigm. I'm comparing what will happen under Obama with what will happen under Romney.

What I'm seeing is, not much difference. We have been living in a big-gish government country for a while now. We're not that far apart from some of those European countries. In fact, we're closer to France than to some of the Baltic or Eastern Europe countries, not to mention Singapore, etc. I don't trust Romney to repeal Obamacare (he's already said he wants to keep the most altruist parts, e.g., the pre-existing condition thing, which basically enshrines the mandate). Even if he wanted to, he's probably not going to have the political power to do anything about it.

Right now in America we live in under a democratic (albeit indirect) system. Even the SCOTUS is politically pragmatic, as was demonstrated. If a majority of US people want Obamacare, they're going to get it. The only way to change that is to work over the long term to change the philosophical outlook. Sending a strong message to the GOP would contribute to that. Sending Romney to the White House will do very little - unless he suddenly becomes a principled capitalist once elected, which I have no reason to believe he will.

For the record, if I were to vote (I'm not a US citizen), I would vote Romney. I would have voted Johnson but his campaign disgusted me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the US becomes an EU style welfare state with recipient voters locking the welfare party in place permanently, there will be non one left to bail you out. Switzerland or Singapore won't do the trick.

The US *is* a welfare state. The average retired couple contributed $149,000 to Medicare and is pulling $350,000 out of it - and what does the GOP says? That it wants to save Medicare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm seeing is, not much difference.

Tell that to people working in the oil and gas industry. Tell that to business owners who are about to get shocked by taxmageddon in January. Tell that to the families of the slain in Benghazi after Obama's pathetic toothless response. For the people paying attention there is plenty to distinguish between. Just because the GOP advocates a mixed economy it does not obliterate the many and deadly crucial differences between the GOP and the socialist left. Obama's vision of America is an unmitigated socialist country, with punitive taxes and redristibutionist schemes that would make the current tax and welfare system look harmless in comparison. His vision of America is bailing out GM to buy out union votes, then funneling taxpayer dollars into failed politically motivated "green" cars. His vision of foreign relations is America being just another craven and impotent EU nation. There are plenty of differences for those who can see them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the US becomes an EU style welfare state with recipient voters locking the welfare party in place permanently, there will be non one left to bail you out. Switzerland or Singapore won't do the trick.

The US *is* a welfare state. The average retired couple contributed $149,000 to Medicare and is pulling $350,000 out of it - and what does the GOP says? That it wants to save Medicare.

You cannot say it that way as a means of obliterating distinctions. We don't have socialized healthcare, and had a good enough history of a free market system for long enough to build the most powerful economy on the planet, by which we fund the most dominant military force on the planet. If we advance further into socialism as Obama wants us to it will decimate our economy and eventually leave our military defanged. Without us, who will keep the world going? Who will march into caves in Afghanistan looking for terrorists? France?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not talking about Obama's wet dreams. I'm talking about what Obama would *do* versus what Romney would, over the next 4 years. Again, I see not much difference. I'm not saying there's none at all. I'm saying there isn't much. Both would bail out Wall Street or Government Motors if needed, neither would repeal Obamacare, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, or Medicare, neither would gut the US military, neither would do much more or much less against the Talibans, neither would help Israel carry an attack of Iran, neither would stand by if Israel itself was attacked militarily, etc. Taxes, education, regulations, etc, are not really something they have a power to influence massively, and I don't trust Romney to stand his ground if he were presented by a "balanced tax deal" by the Congress.

I want the GOP to change and become a pro-freedom, pro-reason platform, not 100 year from now, but in the near future. I don't see how a vote for Romney will help.

As a side note, the reason why the GOP's stance on immigration, abortion, gay rights, etc, is important is not that those issues are more important than economic freedoms or defense. It's because those stances (1) make the GOP sound unprincipled and inconsistent and (2) turn away a lot of moderate voters who would otherwise be confortable voting for the GOP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Who would you never vote for?" is a question in the context of the election here in the real world, not whatever other alternatives one can imagine, but those who specifically answered the question as "never" would have to speak for themselves.

In that case, it's the same question at the first one, isn't it? By definition if you plan to vote for A you will never vote for B or C in the context of this election. Are you saying that this is a question just for undecided?

It is not the same question. First, it is available for those who hadn't committed to who they would vote for to say who had been eliminated, and second the capitalized "NEVER" is a matter of emphasis. The questions and the context are about this election, not whatever other conditions one can imagine. I added that those who answered those questions would have to speak for themselves because I don't know what they had in mind or how they interpreted the question and Elliott had asked what they intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just found this forum yesterday, and only discovered Ayn Rand about a year ago. I always thought I was a conservative, but was very disheartened with the GOP. I read Atlas Shrugged, and it was my "AH HA" moment. Since then I've read Foutainhead, Anthem, We The Living, Capitalism, the Unknown Idea, The Virtue of Selfishness, and Three Plays. I'm now reading Yaron Brook's "Free Market Revolution". Until I posted this question, I was pretty comfortable with labeling myself a libertarian with a small l or an asterisk or however I denote that I don't agree with some of the platform. I they're pretty close to spot on on the implementation of Capitalism. My observation of the GOP party has let me to believe that they are (IMO) mostly Altruist "with friends like these" Capitalist apologists. I can't find the quote, but I've seen a vido of Mrs. Rand herself saying that the Conservatives will ultimately do more damage to Capitalism than the liberals ever will for reasons similar to what I just outlined. I wish I could find that video!!

However, some of the points that have been made are making me reconsidering my position.

Thanks so much to the contributors in this discussion. It's nice to talk to people who are actually informed. I'm quite glad I found this place!

One of the quotes you may be thinking of is in her "Conservatism: An Obituary" in Capitalism the Unknown Ideal:

A bad argument is worse than ineffectual: it lends credence to the arguments of your opponents. A half-battle is worse than none: it does not end in mere defeat—it helps and hastens the victory of your enemies.

Conservatives pushing the "faith, tradition, and the depravity of man" arguments that Ayn Rand wrote about there have continued to be damaging, especially in displacing rational arguments for political freedom. But although some prominent conservatives still do that (for example Glenn Beck), the prominent Catholic conservative William Buckley is gone and events have continued to evolve since 1960. Some conservatives now consistently make much better arguments even when they haven't given up all the old ways (for example Rush Limbaugh).

Likewise, the liberals have evolved into something much worse, making the political situation more desperate and dangerous today than it was in 1960 or even when Ayn Rand died in 1982: John Kennedy -- and even 'Great Society' Lyndon Johnson and malaise Carter -- were not the America-hating egalitarian nihilist ramming through "fundamental change" that Obama is. Even George McGovern, whose move farther to the left in 1972 induced Ayn Rand to support the likes of Richard Nixon, as an "anti-Nixonite for Nixon", wasn't this bad. With Obama, the chickens have come home to roost: We are now living in and covered with the chicken manure that Ayn Rand warned us about, and are in danger of drowning in it. This is not a perpetual academic discussion.

Conservative radio talk show host and attorney Mark Levin has been focusing on the election for months because he understands the distinction between Obama and Romney and the difference it makes to our lives as a result in reality of good and bad principles.

Podcasts for his programs are available (free) at his website. You can also download them automatically through itunes (with the same mechanism as for the leonard Peikoff podcasts).

Levin openly recognizes that Romney is not the ideal candidate even among those who might have been available today, but he has enough sense to not bury and obliterate real distinctions behind floating abstractions bemoaning that Republicans aren't good enough. He knows that the situation is urgent and that the difference is much more than 'Romney isn't quite as bad as Obama'. He also recognizes that a large portion of the population has either been fooled or actually believes in Obama, and that the election is dangerously close.

Levin was in the Justice Dept. under the Reagan administration and knows the kinds of things that can and do go on behind the scenes in government that most people (let alone armchair philosophers) don't hear about -- beyond those things we all do hear about and see the danger in if paying attention. He knows what Obama and his radical left appointees have been doing inside government and how this is planned to become worse if Obama wins another term. Levin's Landmark Legal Foundation has recently filed suit against the Obama EPA under the Freedom of Information Act to expose some of the agency regulatory plans Obama has for the lame duck period and beyond, and which the EPA has been illegally hiding.

Levin's Sept 7 program, in more detail than most others, focused on how much worse the controls and taxes would be under Obama in a second term. He has been telling his listeners to stop wasting time on analyzing the endless polls, which tell us nothing and will decide nothing: Instead go out to get people to vote for Romney and Republicans to take back the Senate and hold and increase the proper influence and control in the House because the election is so close and the results so significant if there is to be any chance of stopping disaster and repealing things like Obama health control. (Harry Reid has already openly stated that he cannot and will not work with Romney.)

His Thursday program (11/01/12) made this interesting appeal, using a passage from his book Ameritopia:

"The essential question", in this election and in every subsequent election, "is whether in America today the peoples' psychology has been so successfully warped, the individual spirit so thoroughly trounced, and the civil society's institutions so effectively overwhelmed that revival is possible."

"Have too many among us, have too many of our fellow citizens already surrendered or been conquered. Can the people overcome the constant and relentless influences of ideological indoctrination, economic manipulation, and administrative coerciveness, or have they become hopelessly entangled and dependent on the ubiquitous Federal government. Are these outrageously fraudulent and phony commercials, and programs, and arguments that we've been inundated with -- are they enough, for a majority of our fellow Americans, to fall for this? Have the Pavlovian appeals to radical egalitarianism and the fomenting of jealousy and faction, through class warfare and collectivism, conditioned the people to accept or even demand compulsory uniformity, as just and righteous? Is it accepted as legitimate and routine that the government has sufficient license to act for the good of the people and against the selfishness of the individual?"

These are the issues, these are the questions that will be decided on Tuesday, no matter how much one campaign spends in one state or another or what one poll or fifteen polls say about Wisconsin.

This is how to 'send a message', as opposed to throwing a vote away to a vague anarcho-ostrich party that most people know nothing about instead of voting like the election matters in reality. That kind of appeal and Levin's knowledge of the details of government are a lot better than the conservative injunctions Ayn Rand was writing about and properly denouncing (and helped to diminish today), and Levin's emphasis on and knowledge of practical consequences of bad principles are a lot better than what some others are saying and doing in the name of Ayn Rand's philosophy. Choose your allies wisely, not by labels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What this administration has been doing behind the scenes is ten times more frightening that what they've been doing openly; I'm even scared of what this group of thugs will do between Wednesday and, if we're lucky, Romney's inauguration. A second term would be a disaster we won't pull out of easily, if at all. It sucks, but Romney is the only choice for those in states where there's even a remote chance of a GOP victory. (Hey, Reagan took NY in 1980. While things have gotten far worse since then, the parallels between Carter and Obama are staggering. I pray my rationalization holds out . . . )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US *is* a welfare state. The average retired couple contributed $149,000 to Medicare and is pulling $350,000 out of it - and what does the GOP says? That it wants to save Medicare.

That ain't nuthin'. We're taking in tens of thousands of welfare recipients every year, on a population of less than ten million. Our average total tax burden has been estimated at 70%, not including statism influence on markets, industry, technology, innovation etc. Isolated Muslim ghettos are beginning to form in many places, and much of the Jewish population has already been forced to flee the southern city of Malmö, the city with the highest Muslim concentration in Sweden.

The reason we're still mostly glass and steel instead of stone and mud is YOU. Europe can't and won't return the favor when you're in the same place that we're now. The US of A had better pull itself together or we will all, to quote Full Metal Jacket, be in a world of ######.

You think gas is high at $3.50. It's $8.50 here. Use that as an analogy for everything else as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason we're still mostly glass and steel instead of stone and mud is YOU. Europe can't and won't return the favor when you're in the same place that we're now. The US of A had better pull itself together or we will all, to quote Full Metal Jacket, be in a world of ######.

Then get your ass over here and join the fight. Bring Commetmaker, ~Sophia and the like with you. Buy PhilO a drink, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My plan is to make my skills special enough to warrant a work visa, maybe in a few years, and then take it from there. Hopefully I'll get to meet up with some of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the podcast plug ewv. I'm downloading it now and will make sure to listen to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Use http://www.marklevinshow.com/rss/ilevin.xml for itunes access.

The live show is 3 hours, which isn't very efficient to listen to unless it happens to be on in the background of something you are doing. The podcasts are about 1 hour 50 mins without most of the ads and I listen to them speeded up typically at 140% except for the most important segments, mostly while doing something else at least on and off on the computer. That has made it possible to listen all of the shows since the beginning of Sept. Not all the segments and callers or guests are of significance.

I don't remember which program had the description of his experiences with, and what is likely to happen in, a lame duck session especially if Obama doesn't make a second term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US *is* a welfare state. The average retired couple contributed $149,000 to Medicare and is pulling $350,000 out of it - and what does the GOP says? That it wants to save Medicare.

That ain't nuthin'. We're taking in tens of thousands of welfare recipients every year, on a population of less than ten million. Our average total tax burden has been estimated at 70%, not including statism influence on markets, industry, technology, innovation etc.

There are 49M of Medicare recipients in the US, out of a population of 311M. This doesn't include Medicaid (which is small), SS, unemployment insurance, food stamps, etc, etc, etc.

The US is a welfare state, different from Europe's in degree only. The US spends more than 19% of its GDP on welfare (incl. education). Spains spends 25%, the UK 26%, Germany 35% and France 38%. Europe spends quite a bit more but we're not talking about an order of magnitude difference (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state).

Taxes here are comparatively less than in Europe not only because of lower welfare expenditures but also because it puts more on its credit card. The US debt will eventually come back as taxes or inflation.

As a side note, I'm French, born in '71, moved to the US in '96 where I stayed until '08. We then spent 3 years in France and came back to our home in Seattle in May '11. Unemployment in France is much worse than in the US and taxes are apalling. The country is more advanced down its road to socialism, and altruism is deeply enshrined. From my perspective I see the US not that far behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why France and not something worse? Or, France in what century? The latest out of Obama is that he wants his followers to vote for him for "revenge". He said that to a large crowd. He is dangerous. This is much different and much worse than medicare or some degree of welfare statism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow I unsubscribed to this topic and didn't realize their where so many responses.

Evw, I really appreciate the insight! Joss, your points are exactly the points I've been making for quite some time, but at this point I'm reconsidering them.

Here is the video I was speaking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since New Jersey is going to go for Barak the Obamanation I am going to write in a vote for C'thulu.

I am sick and tired of settling for the lesser of evils. I am voting for the greatest of evils.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is the video I was speaking about.

Some conservatives are now better than that and the 'liberals' are now a lot worse, but she sure could have been talking about John McCain four years ago. Remember during the debate season how he and Obama went as guests on a TV show together, outdoing each other oozing support for endless ways to sacrifice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since New Jersey is going to go for Barak the Obamanation I am going to write in a vote for C'thulu.

I am sick and tired of settling for the lesser of evils. I am voting for the greatest of evils.

ruveyn

Then why bother to 'vote' at all? Why fight your way through the neo-Carter gas lines and rationing to get to the polls only to make an obscure statement that the vote-counters won't understand, will not count for anything, will do no good for anything, and no one else will see? If you don't take voting seriously then indulge your frustrations here and save yourself the effort of the trip to the polls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since New Jersey is going to go for Barak the Obamanation I am going to write in a vote for C'thulu.

I am sick and tired of settling for the lesser of evils. I am voting for the greatest of evils.

ruveyn

Then why bother to 'vote' at all? Why fight your way through the neo-Carter gas lines and rationing to get to the polls only to make an obscure statement that the vote-counters won't understand, will not count for anything, will do no good for anything, and no one else will see? If you don't take voting seriously then indulge your frustrations here and save yourself the effort of the trip to the polls.

There may be candidates for other offices and measures on the ballot that are worth voting for or against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites