Friday, September 21, 2012

Voting Redux

(Or, wottheheck, for ducks; you might as well, sometimes).

     Found myself taken to task a little yesterday for suggesting you otta vote in one post and two posts later, saying "we can't fix this by voting," referring to what I think is an ineviatble collapse of the monetary system, probably taking the down with it.  ("It can't happen here?"  A lot of Russians thought that, too.)

     Okay, if it is going to go smash, why bother?

     Here's why:

     A. You can slow it down, put off the crash.  Better hungry later than sooner!

     B. You can make a difference on specific issues.  Look at the progress made on gun rights, for instance.

     C. You can get rid of the worst offenders.  Take Indiana State Supreme Court Justice Steven H. David, who figures you have no right to resist police, ever, even if they just kick in your door sans warrant or exigent circumstances.  We have one (1) chance to send this witless jackboot down; it's coming up this November and you need to get out there and vote NO on the question, "Shall Justice Steven H. David be retained?"  Oh, hells no!  He needs to find other work.  Vote no now or we will be stuck with him until he decides to step down, probably using someone's face as a step.

     Can you save the U.S. from the voting both?  In the long run, probably not.*  But there's a whole lot you can do in the short term, up close, and if you don't, the morons who got us in this mess will keep hastening the eventual end.  Why let 'em?
* For instance, Mr. Romney is, I think, a better choice than Mr. Obama.  But he's not a great choice, and the same can be said about most of the candidates for the Legislative Branch, too.  They don't grasp the problem and even if they did, they lack the fortitude to address it; it wouldn't play well with the voting public to do so. 


Divemedic said...

I'd rather that it collapses earlier. That way I will still be young enough to survive it. Why leave THAT particular legacy to my kids?
Anyway, Republican or Democrat, there is no difference. They both spend gobs of money to buy the votes of their gullible bases, and in the end will sacrifice all of us on the altar of their own lust for power.

Roberta X said...

I want it later -- more time to prepare; more time to enjoy the good stuff while we can. Rather have more happy memories than bad ones.

perlhaqr said...


Better hungry later than sooner!

I'm kinda with Divemedic on this one. I think I'm probably better off to be hungry at 35 than 65. And if I'm going to have to run around and play Wolverines!, I'd rather do it before the arthritis I've already got gets any worse, y'know?

(Though, of course, I'd rather not do it at all, but as you say, we're not voting our way out of this one.)

Fuzzy Curmudgeon said...

One thing's for durn sure: Keeping a guy in office who keeps trying to build a personality cult is not going to be good for anybody, in either the short or the long run.

Obama needs to be shown the door, and that soon. And absolutely vote NO on Steven David in Indiana; this is the guy who said you have no right to defend yourself when the po-po bust your door down in the middle of the night without cause, contravening hundreds of years of common law, not to mention a million years of common sense.

fast richard said...

The voting booth is much too late in the political process to have much impact. Whether any reform at the level of government can stop the slow motion collapse, or even slow it down much, is an open question. The most the average person can do is give the system a little nudge in the right direction.

To have a positive effect it is necessary to keep up that nudge as a steady pressure. Up here in MN the Ron Paul/Monarchist* movement garnered enough delegates to choose an Austrian Economist as a US Senate Candidate, but have failed to give him the support he would need to run an effective campaign against a lock-step liberal incumbent.

*I call them monarchists because they are a personality cult interested almost exclusively in the power of the chief executive who is expected to be the Protector of the Peoples Rights. How most of them can claim any libertarian principles is beyond me.

Drang said...

I want it later -- more time to prepare; more time to enjoy the good stuff while we can.
Besides, the horse may learn to sign.


We're rapidly approaching the Singularity, and who knows what may come of that?

Hell, Bobbi may be able to reveal the truth about the High Frontier, and we'll get to go. "It's rainin' soup, grab a bucket!"

Ritchie said...

The lesser of 2 evils is still less evil. Prioritize your threats.

Roberta X said...

Drang, I don't think we are.

Drang said...

I meant "sing", not "sign", obviously, although that would be a miracle, too.

And I do admit to wondering whether the apparent vertical of progress that some call the singularity is real or an optical illusion of sorts. (Does that confession cost me RAH Fan Points?)

Joe in PNG said...

If the whole thing is going to fall apart anyway, best done under the guy that doesn't have a Cult of Personality... or personality for that matter.