My god, my head hurts. Either it's the alcohol induced hangover, or this thread just really really f***ing sucks!
Seriously Jake dude, are you reading your arguments? I mean, are you physically scrolling down on the page and looking at your arguments bro?
I was thinking today about why I chose to support Mitt Romney over Gary Johnson.
I definitely agree with Johnson more than I agree with Romney, so why support Romney? Well, because Romney has a better chance of winning.
First of all, might I ask what is even the point of bringing this up? Most everyone by now has accepted the fact that you want to vote for the rabid flip-flopper because (like all liars and politicians do) he has the better chance of winning than say the principled not at all contradictory Gary Johnson, whose claim to fame was being Governor of a Mountain West state with (at the time) 1.5-1.8 million people. You have repeatedly staken the claim to wanting to go with Romney due to his statistically higher chances of winning.
Big freaking whoop. Again what is the point of repeat this bullschnooze?
WHAT THE FREAKING HELL DO YOU THINK THE JUDICIAL BRANCH DOES? Sit around and play pool all day and smoke crack rock? Why do you think that branch of government exists? Too look pretty in freaking black robes and for men to fantasize about what 70 year old women look like naked? My god man! I'll just stop right there due to the sickening images coming into my head!
Anyway, now that I've calmed down, the reason Bush didn't go all the way with the gay (pardon the rhyming scheme) marriage ban or overturning Roe v. Wade is because he simply didn't have the ability to do so. I mean, this is the Republican Party of 2004 you are talking about, not the one of 2012. A party that still had quite a few pro-choice pro-gay moderates still left in it. Sure, one could argue that the Republicans would have enough conservatives in the caucus to push for either of these two bills, but that disregards the pragmatism of an earlier era. The Republican Party needs more than the South and Great Plains to have a majority in the House of Representatives and in the US Senate, a fact that is obviously not dawning on some people. Anyway, I could imagine a number of Republicans, even a few conservative ones, being kind of iffy on either voting for a gay marriage ban or overturning Roe v. Wade. The electorate could perceive either as being far far reaching and it could have dangerous consequences for Republicans in swing districts who care mostly about economics and could give a whiff about social issues like gay marriage or abortion.
Now onto Obama:
Yeah, if you consider 256 House seats and
barely having 60 Senate seats (made possible by the defection of one Arlen Specter) to be a "super-majority" for less than 180 days.
Anyways, it's ridiculous to assume that a party with a large white union base would be overly thrilled about passing either marijuana legalization or gay marriage. Obama would quickly be painted as a radical by many of his own party members and he would likely face a primary challenge that wouldn't win against him, but weaken him enough in the long run to make defeat in the general pretty much a done deal. Marijuana legalization, as much of a "you've got to be crazy to be opposed to it" issue it is, would be even less likely to pass through Congress, considering how much pandering Democrats do towards the "soccer mom" crowd.
Both issues are popular with Americans, however Congress is too much ruled by special interests to make it happen.
And I say this as somebody who supports drug legalization and gay marriage.
The problem here is that, Americans on average tend to not like the social issues boat being rocked. Bush or Obama pushing for social issue legislation on the national level would've been rocking the boat being rocked quite a bit.
And how would Romney handle the economy?
Because, given his record, I'm drawing blanks here. Seriously, does this guy play lotto numbers with policy or something? Were you even paying attention the past few years and have you even bothered to look at wikipedia to see how his principled campaign for Mass. Gov went? Or how about his even more principled and not at all big spending liberal pro-universal healthcare term in office went? Or how about his attempts to out liberal Ted Kennedy in 1994, insisting he was an Independent during Bush/Reagan?
How the hell am I supposed to know if he's going to operate like a communist or a libertarian? Given his vicious record of blatant flip floppery (that keeps up the grand Massachusetts tradition nonetheless)?
.....Oh wait. I think I'm beginning to see a pattern here as to why YOU think Romney is a good choice for President. After all, Romney also seems to be of the mind "principles be damned! Let's just get elected!"
I guess if I lived in Weimar Germany I would vote National Socialist. After all, I disagree with like 98% of what they say, but hey at least they could operate the economy better than the Communists and have a chance to win, unlike the Conservative People's Party!
Yes, slippery slope. And a bit a Godwin for you. But necessary.
I hope you genuinely understand how dangerous this line of thought really is Jake. Because, people who think like you do (aka "non-Democrat and non-Republican votes DON'T MATTER") are why it's gotten to the point where third party votes really don't matter anymore. You know, I was thinking the other day that I'm a political apathetic, but the more I think about it people who vote "lessor of two evils" are the REAL APATHETICS. Because, at least when I don't vote I'm doing it out of principle.
Just a closing thought for you.
