The Illusion of Choice: Romney vs Obama

[FoundingFather]

This is a long thread. The answer is a simple question:

What illusion do you subscribe to?

The far, far left of Obama, or the centrist leaning a bit right Romney? Not a tough decision unless you are a marxist.

Or a Gary Johnsonist.

Doesn't even take thinking about, really.

Your choice based on what you are. Not on what you wish.

Marxist....now there's an interesting word. Take a look at Karl Marx's communist manifesto and see where our government matches up. Truth is we've incorporated a lot his ideas decades ago, just off the top of my head here are a few obvious ones:

- A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (Got that one, see IRS, since 1913)

- Abolition of all right of inheritance. (Not quite there, but see heavy estate/gift taxes)

- Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. (See the NDAA where if you are a "suspected" terrorist, you lose all your rights)

- Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. (Got that one, See Federal Reserve, since 1913)

-Free education for all children in public schools. (We've got government forced tax funded public schools, also see Department of Education, No Child Left Behind, etc)

Romney and Obama aren't against any of the above, so what does that make them? Is Romney just a wee bit less of a Marxist than Obama and that's why I should vote for him?

 

[JoeRider]

You have the person with all the intel and materials to commit the crime. A part I left out… you have people who have a long record of committing such horrible acts (like al Qaeda) and you’re going to second guess whether you’re wrong? The question goes both ways… What if you’re right and you do nothing? The blood of tens of thousands will be on your hands for doing nothing.



Massive resources would be required to evacuate a city in an orderly fashion, without creating chaos, and be able to get everyone to a safe distance in every direction from the blast zone. Then it would take months to find the bomb. This isn’t even reasonably feasible. Besides, if you doubt your intel, evacuating is too risky. What if you’re wrong? You’ve just evacuated tens of thousands of people who are now angry at your incompetence.

There is no easy answer. A leader has to make the hard decisions and trust the professionals that are feeding him the intel to make an informed decision. If a member of al Qaeda (who we already know is our enemy) allegedly has their finger on the trigger and we preempt it and are wrong, we have killed one of the enemy anyway. I say no harm no fowl. We’re either at war with these people and do what is necessary or we’re not.

Aw, come on, why can't we be a bunch of Pollyanna's. It is so much easier to think that way. "Gee officer, I just put my beer down when the car hit the tree. I don't know why they put a tree there?"

 

[FoundingFather]

Updated my original post with a list of similarities between Romney and Obama for completeness of my arguement.

 

[Larry Gude]

Thanks, actually I consider myself a Federalist. A breed that died after Adams screwed it up. Neo-cons get the point. Obviously they are not popular and very few really understand them. Goldwater Republicans come close, but nothing really fits if you know what I mean.

Unfortunately, y'all are still popular. Your understanding of what the term means gets shakier every time you try to claim someone as yours. First Buckley and now Goldwater?

What next? Reagan?

 

[helloween]

Been seeing some GJ signs pop up in the last few days, so looks like he has some support around here

 

[JoeRider]

Unfortunately, y'all are still popular. Your understanding of what the term means gets shakier every time you try to claim someone as yours. First Buckley and now Goldwater?

What next? Reagan?

Nope, my take on Goldwater and Reagan don't lineup. Many principles carry over but it is not a close fit like the Federalist. I consider Reagan handling of Beirut bomb as a D- in foreign affairs. I give Reagan credit for putting the final nail in the Soviet Union. "Take Down That Wall" has had a huge positive impact on the world of freedom. Think about how long it took to get to that point and how long the pressure was on the Soviets/East Germans to get that wall down.

Germany was divided in 1945 and is a good model for the difference between Socialist/Marxist/Communist rule (east Germany) and Capitalist (West Germany). If you want the US to look like East Germany, just keep electing Democrats. Just think if we did not waver on our policies on Cube where they would be.

BTW, I had passport in hand and was researching travel to Germany to be there when the wall came down. Could not go because of work, but it would have been cool to be there.

 

[JoeRider]

Marxist....now there's an interesting word. Take a look at Karl Marx's communist manifesto and see where our government matches up. Truth is we've incorporated a lot his ideas decades ago, just off the top of my head here are a few obvious ones:

- A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (Got that one, see IRS, since 1913)

- Abolition of all right of inheritance. (Not quite there, but see heavy estate/gift taxes)

- Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. (See the NDAA where if you are a "suspected" terrorist, you lose all your rights)

- Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. (Got that one, See Federal Reserve, since 1913)

-Free education for all children in public schools. (We've got government forced tax funded public schools, also see Department of Education, No Child Left Behind, etc)

Romney and Obama aren't against any of the above, so what does that make them? Is Romney just a wee bit less of a Marxist than Obama and that's why I should vote for him?

I think Romney is more than a wee bit.

Communist Manifesto (Chapter 2)


From Communist Manifesto:

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

 

[Larry Gude]

Nope, my take on Goldwater and Reagan don't lineup. Many principles carry over but it is not a close fit like the Federalist. I consider Reagan handling of Beirut bomb as a D- in foreign affairs. .

And that is why he earns an A+ from me. He had a golden opportunity to get us embroiled in yet another no win quagmire and had not only the wisdom to see it for what it was but the courage to take our lumps and get the hell out.

For every war, there is supposed to be a goal that the military can achieve that supports the national purpose. We failed in Vietnam because the political aim was impossible for the military to carry out because the political goal was never really defined. Tactical success. Strategic defeat. We did so well in '91 because the goal was stated, clear and attainable. Iraq and Afghanistan have fallen back into the Vietnam mold.

The lesson is to be wary. Add to that how wars are won. Add to that the distinct character of America that can so readily conflict with winning wars when we have embarked on a bad one.

I'll save the rest of the details but, suffice it to say that the neo con spirit too easily gets out in front of who we are as a nation, how that affects fighting, the use of OUR military and we end up with messes like we have now when that happens. It didn't have to happen this way and I totally blame the prior administration for this failure which is not to give the current one a lick of credit because they've done nothing but seek the least risk to the president politically step by step.

In any event, Reagan did absolutely the right thing. It took wisdom and courage. He had both in abundance.

 

[JoeRider]

In any event, Reagan did absolutely the right thing. It took wisdom and courage. He had both in abundance.

Yea, he had courage, not so sure about wisdom.

As I study more on Reagan, he is an interesting character. I think Baker was really the brains behind it all. Talk about a behind the scenes powerhouse.

Rumsfeld had his finger prints on some of the successes in the middle east. It is interesting the carry over from the Nixon and Ford Administration.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yea, he had courage, not so sure about wisdom.

.

I'm reading an interesting book on Vietnam and it lays out a lot of Clauswitz, US national character, all sorts of learned folks and view points. It has helped me, a lot, with detail and facts to give substance to my instincts. I mean, obviously, things went wrong when a nation as dominant as we are commits to a war, Vietnam, Irag, A'stan, and loses. It's not just simple 'kill 'em all!' or 'nuke 'em!'. That totally omits who we are as a people, how we work and think and value things. And it isn't as simple as blaming it on 'politics' or 'the media'. It comes down to choices our elected leadership makes that flies in the face of history. People like LBJ and Bush 43 aren't just dumb but, they are arrogant. They do think, clearly, that, somehow, history just doesn't apply to them. Our failures, given all that goes into them, the defining of the political goals, the choosing of the means to reach them, the public, all the great minds and great experience still, in our system, boils down to one person declaring the objective. And choosing wisely.

Just imagine had Reagan got his blood up and turned the Marines loose. Brought in more forces. To do what? How long before Beirut became a tar baby for us? What would are national interest be and how could we have served it any better than AVOIDING a great mess?

Great nations are not immune to bloody noses nor are the immune to extinction. But, those things don't just happen. Leaders lead. They set a course. Sometimes it is better to stop or back up. Sometimes it is better to damn the torpedoes, so to speak.

LBJ put himself above the nation. I think Bush 43 did as well. I know Obama does. A greater understanding of all the dynamics that go into decision points like LBJ faced, like Nixon faced, Reagan, any president, helps, greatly, to clarify that it truly does come down to one person making a decision. This is both a great source of unease for me.

And of hope. Reagan chose wisely. Very. He put nation ahead of self.

 

[FoundingFather]

Had a thought about the whole "lesser of evils" situation that I wanted to get out there...

All men have sinned and therefore technically all are evil. So someone could say "your candidate is just the less of three, four, or X number of evils". Well obviously for this reason, the word "evil" is a bad adjective here.

A more accurate way to judge the candidates would to identify the one who will actually serve to protect the rights granted to the people in the constitution (after all, these politicans do take an oath of office to do just that). Well then, someone could rebuttle that criteria with, "since the constitution was created by man is not a perfect document and therefore subject to change". I agree and I think the authors knew this, but they also knew any changes must be in line with the original intent of the document (promotion of life, individual liberty, property rights, limited govt, etc). Any candidate who either lies against his oath to defend the constitution or promotes ammendments/legislation that is not in line with the original intent is not worthy. Well its obvious we've long since compromised on that and our current reference point is heavily skewed.

So what to do? Well, I would say anyone advocating straying further or maintaining the current distance from those princples is not worthy ("evil") and anyone advocating (and backed up by voting record) returning closer to those principles is worthy ("good"). To me, Romney/Obama (and most republicans/democrats in general) are clearly in the former group, and guys like Gary Johnson and Ron Paul are in the latter.

 

[Larry Gude]

A more accurate way to judge the candidates would to identify the one who will actually serve to protect the rights granted to the people in the constitution :

The constitutional argument is made in a futile attempt to point out how the thing is supposed to work and then to ask if anyone cares. The answer is 'no'. Most people simply do not care about the constitution, at all and that is because the federal government is so far over it's banks, it's limits, it is, as a practical matter, absurd to discuss 'constitutionality' when discussing the issues of the day. It's sad. It's a sure path to losing all our rights. But, it's the way it is. I mean, that is ALL Ron Paul does is say "Hey! The Constitution says we can't do X. We can change the Constitution to allow X but, unless and until we do, we can't and we shouldn't do X" and people decry and denounce him as a kook for pointing out the ONLY rules that are standing between any of us and national ruin.

We all have this sort of vague faith that, by and large, nothing too terrible is happening to us individually so, what's the big deal? We all have this sort of vague faith that the government won't get too crazy.

UNLESS the other team is in power and THEN, . Ones own party can do X, all day long. X plus. X super sized. X to the X. There are REASONS for it. Our guy loves the country. Our guy cares. Our guy is this or that. THEIR guy, now THEIR is a Constitution shredding sumbytch if ever there was one!

And so it goes.

So, as a practical matter, I know I am pissing in the wind because not enough people actually care. The case is made for Romney, but, not on constitutional grounds. Just the vague hope he will be better.

I hope he is. Because that's all we have.

 

[Christy]

Okay, I've sat here and read page after page of you all waxing philisophical over your Libertarian ideals and playing armchair President all the way back to Washington... Woulda, coulda, shoulda....

Don't get me wrong, I have always leaned Libertarian, with the exception of National Defense and International Affairs. I am adamantly opposed to isolationism. North Korea ought to give anyone with half a brain what isolationism does for a country.

I am also sick to death of the finger pointing back to ourselves with regard to how we are perceived in the Middle East. I'm sick of you apologists blaming every atrocity done to our citizens and our allies on our meddling in the Middle East and being allies with Israel. We SHOULD be meddling in the Middle East, we SHOULD be standing up for Israel.

In case you haven't read the news lately, Iran has a psychopath as a leader. A man who fully believes to his core that his purpose in life is to bring forth the end of days.

Turkey (formerly one of our closest Arab allies) is moving away from a secular government and embedding radical Muslims in every part of their government.

Egypt has gone the way of the Muslim Brotherhood. The world is on the brink of disaster and we are the biggest target for these crazies.

It is foolish and irresponsible to think that if we now adopt a stance of non-intervention that the Muslim world will no longer seek to destroy us. That Pandoras box has been opened and its not shutting.

The illusion isn't the choice between Romney and Obama. The illusion is that a Libertarian approach to US Defense and international relations isn't anything but suicide for this country and its allies.

But by all means, let's just sit here and debate going back to the gold standard and if Reagan was really a conservative.

 

[FoundingFather]

So, as a practical matter, I know I am pissing in the wind because not enough people actually care. The case is made for Romney, but, not on constitutional grounds. Just the vague hope he will be better.

I hope he is. Because that's all we have.

Yeah, I hear you, but when does one give up hope? How much evidence does one have to see to realize that the hope is unjustified? That line has been crossed for me. When it comes down to it, its really a matter of self-respect. Its like a bad relationship: how long will you put up with someone how treats you like sh*t you before you stand up for yourself?

 

[Larry Gude]

O

Don't get me wrong, I have always leaned Libertarian, with the exception of National Defense and International Affairs. I am adamantly opposed to isolationism. North Korea ought to give anyone with half a brain what isolationism does for a country.

I am also sick to death of the finger pointing back to ourselves with regard to how we are perceived in the Middle East. I'm sick of you apologists blaming every atrocity done to our citizens and our allies on our meddling in the Middle East and being allies with Israel. We SHOULD be meddling in the Middle East, we SHOULD be standing up for Israel.

In case you haven't read the news lately, Iran has a psychopath as a leader. A man who fully believes to his core that his purpose in life is to bring forth the end of days.

Turkey (formerly one of our closest Arab allies) is moving away from a secular government and embedding radical Muslims in every part of their government.

Egypt has gone the way of the Muslim Brotherhood. The world is on the brink of disaster and we are the biggest target for these crazies.

It is foolish and irresponsible to think that if we now adopt a stance of non-intervention that the Muslim world will no longer seek to destroy us. That Pandoras box has been opened and its not shutting.

The illusion isn't the choice between Romney and Obama. The illusion is that a Libertarian approach to US Defense and international relations isn't anything but suicide for this country and its allies.

But by all means, let's just sit here and debate going back to the gold standard and if Reagan was really a conservative.

Christy, I could not make a better case than that to STOP what we've been doing.

You are correct; It all IS getting worse. Does it not concern you that it has all gotten worse IN SPITE of, or BECAUSE of what we've been doing? This is through BOTH political parties leadership.

Do we just double down?

Clearly, clear as can be, we have made it worse. It is absurd to have our armies scattered all over the globe, operating, conducting war, killing people with drones and expect Pakistan and Iran and Turkey and everyone else to just sit there.

We had Bush, we had Cheney and Rumsfeld. Could we draw up a better leadership team to prosecute the wars? They failed. They just did and in so doing lost the moral authority by claiming this existential threat and then fighting as though it's a water dispute.

Now what? Obama certainly isn't going to get it won.

Now what? Is Mitt, Mr. Bain, is he, somehow, our hero riding over the hill to make better decisions and win the thing?

Now what? It is ignoring those wiser than us to be wary, including, we're told, Bush 41's admonishments to be wary, that got us in this mess. Continuing on this path is destroying this nation as effectively bin Laden planned on; defeating ourselves.

What do we do? I say focus on America. You say...what?

 

[FoundingFather]

Don't get me wrong, I have always leaned Libertarian, with the exception of National Defense and International Affairs. I am adamantly opposed to isolationism. North Korea ought to give anyone with half a brain what isolationism does for a country.

I am also sick to death of the finger pointing back to ourselves with regard to how we are perceived in the Middle East. I'm sick of you apologists blaming every atrocity done to our citizens and our allies on our meddling in the Middle East and being allies with Israel. We SHOULD be meddling in the Middle East, we SHOULD be standing up for Israel.

In case you haven't read the news lately, Iran has a psychopath as a leader. A man who fully believes to his core that his purpose in life is to bring forth the end of days.

Turkey (formerly one of our closest Arab allies) is moving away from a secular government and embedding radical Muslims in every part of their government.

Egypt has gone the way of the Muslim Brotherhood. The world is on the brink of disaster and we are the biggest target for these crazies.

It is foolish and irresponsible to think that if we now adopt a stance of non-intervention that the Muslim world will no longer seek to destroy us. That Pandoras box has been opened and its not shutting.

Isolation is different from non-intervention. Non-intervention does not mean non-defense. If it does, then prove it to me.

I do not condone any act of violence, regardless of the reason. So therefore, I do not apologize for any violence done by those in the Middle East on our citizens. However, you are being a fool if you think our meddling plays no part whatsoever in causing some of that violence.

I do read the news, but what can you really believe from it? What comes out of the mainstream media is filled with propoganda, so I take it at face value. Oh, they "hate us because we are free" right?

The illusion isn't the choice between Romney and Obama. The illusion is that a Libertarian approach to US Defense and international relations isn't anything but suicide for this country and its allies.

But by all means, let's just sit here and debate going back to the gold standard and if Reagan was really a conservative.

The illusion is that the US Defense and international relations is a way of protecting our freedoms, when its really just a front to enforce international usage of the worthless paper that is the US Federal Reserve Note. See other countries (including Iran) using different curriences and gold to trade for commodities (i.e. oil), and then our immediate intervention to stop it. The gig is up for America when other nations reject accepting worthless paper for real tangible goods that they produce.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yeah, I hear you, but when does one give up hope? How much evidence does one have to see to realize that the hope is unjustified? That line has been crossed for me. When it comes down to it, its really a matter of self-respect. Its like a bad relationship: how long will you put up with someone how treats you like sh*t you before you stand up for yourself?

Anh. As George Will says, the true conservative always expects the worst simply based on a reasonable understanding of human behavior. That way, you can enjoy always being right and, if we, as a people, do something sensible, you get to be wrong about something that is good for us all.

Me, personally, I am terribly optimistic. Unreasonably and irrationally so and it's because of the power of 'what if'. It is POSSIBLE to fix this nation nearly overnight IF people just support reasonable policy. Now, as a conservative, I don't expect that but, the optimist in me is irrepressible.

So, there is no 'standing up for yourself' per se. It's just the way it is. I would love it if I am totally wrong about Mitt. However, in 3 years when the excuses start flying, if I'm not wrong, then, I get to enjoy, if nothing else, being right.

It's a lot like my Redskins. I bet against them. If they win, I'm happy. If they lose, I was right and maybe make a buck.

 

[Christy]

Christy, I could not make a better case than that to STOP what we've been doing.


Do we just double down?

What do we do? I say focus on America. You say...what?

Larry, the only thing these people know and respect is who is the most powerful. We don't just double down, we triple down and we fight these people like we are at war. REALLY at war. We don't pander to any of them. We don't apologize, EVER.

The reason things have ratcheted up against us and against Israel is because they know damn well we're all talk. We hit them every now and again with a missile from a drone, but for the most part they know full well that we are impotent and we (at this time) don't have it in us to get down and dirty and fight them and eradicate them. Hell, we don't even allow our troops to be armed at times for fear that we might inadvertantly kill an innocent villager.

Until we have the will and the determination to fight a real war, none of this will end. We need to go Ghengis Khan on these people or just end it and throw up the white flag. If we throw up the white flag you may as well start learning to live under Sharia Law. That is their goal, everyone will live under Sharia Law or be dead.

 

[Christy]

However, you are being a fool if you think our meddling plays no part whatsoever in causing some of that violence.

I do read the news, but what can you really believe from it? What comes out of the mainstream media is filled with propoganda, so I take it at face value. Oh, they "hate us because we are free" right?

I honestly don't care why they hate us. It doesn't matter in the least why they hate us. They hate us, plain and simple. I don't know about you, but if someone hates me and promises on a daily basis to kill me, my family, my friends, or my neighbors, I certainly wouldn't apologize. I'd get them gone before they got me gone.

It's really quite that simple.

 

[FoundingFather]

I honestly don't care why they hate us. It doesn't matter in the least why they hate us. They hate us, plain and simple. I don't know about you, but if someone hates me and promises on a daily basis to kill me, my family, my friends, or my neighbors, I certainly wouldn't apologize. I'd get them gone before they got me gone.

It's really quite that simple.

That's a shame because it does matter. If they hate us for our policy with their respective nation, then we can actually change that.

If someone hates you, then you should examine your own behavior as well as theirs, before making a conclusion.