Voting based on Principles

[liveonearth]

This is Chuck Baldwin's rationale for voting your principles, instead of for who you think has a chance to win. Worthwhile read for sure. I'm not planning to vote for Chuck, but I like his thinking

Comments

[neptunia67]

Take a look at the recent $700 billion Wall Street bailout: both John McCain and Barack Obama endorsed and lobbied for it. Both McCain and Obama will continue to bail out these international banksters on the backs of the American taxpayers. Both McCain and Obama support giving illegal aliens amnesty and a path to citizenship. In the debate this past Tuesday night, both McCain and Obama expressed support for sending U.S. forces around the world for "peacekeeping" purposes. They also expressed support for sending combat forces against foreign countries even if those countries do not pose a threat to the United States. Neither Obama nor McCain will do anything to stem the tide of a burgeoning police state or a mushrooming New World Order. Both Obama and McCain support NAFTA and similar "free trade" deals. Neither candidate will do anything to rid America of the Federal Reserve, or work to eliminate the personal income tax, or disband the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Both Obama and McCain support the United Nations. So, pray tell, how is a vote for either McCain or Obama not a wasted vote?

I am so tired of hearing this stuff. People need to realize that the president has very little POWER, and instead needs to be a great LEADER. Anybody who gets into the white house is going to have a tremendous amount of things to deal with, coming from all directions. They will have to surround themselves with capable people to deal with much of it. And a candidate that gets too radical with their statements is not going to make it there. If I were running, I'd be keeping my statements as ambiguous as possible, to get the votes. Then I'd get in there and make things happen. And I am not going to waste my vote on somebody who doesn't have a chance. I am going to use it on the candidate who, in my opinion, shows the greatest promise of getting us out of our current situations.

[liveonearth]

Obama, then? It will be interesting to see if he can make something happen, and if so, what it is. What do you think he legacy will be?

I'm sorry that you're tired of hearing that neither leading candidate is really addressing the most important issues of our time....because it is painfully true. It is not going away. We all need to face it and discuss it and have some sort of an idea what to do about it. Not just you and I, but all those people who are even less aware, them too. Until then we will keep doing what we are doing: accepting so-called leaders who are pawns of the military/industrial - pharmaceutical/chemical - corporate/financial/etc complex.... and allowing the corporate rampage to continue.

I really think that if a true leader came along they would be able to speak honestly and directly, and not be ambiguous at all, and to take a landslide victory because of it. I think I am not the only one who is sick and tired of hearing competing commercials instead of honest consideration of the issues.

[neptunia67]

I hear ya. There are SO many unaware people out there, who are easily influenced by the media. It amazes me how negativity gets so much more attention than rational thinking.

Obama's legacy... to be completely honest, I don't know. I really don't. The only thing I know for certain at this point is that McCain/Palin are not who I want to see in the white house.

I was thinking about another post of yours, where you said we need a leader and not a politician. I wonder how well somebody (a normal person) would fare if they put enough energy into a campaign. Like a real, honest-to-goodness, hard working American, a natural leader with no political experience. I wonder what kind of support they'd get from the American public?

[liveonearth]

I think that a reasonably intelligent, charismatic and reasonable person from any walk of life could still get a whole lot of votes, if they became KNOWN. The problem is that they would be working against the existing corporate/political system. Ron Paul's campaign is proof enough of that. Winning would require reaching all those voters who currently only consider voting for a person that they see on TV, but without the advantage of TV. It would be a lot of legwork, and probably smart to train up a batch of representatives to go around and speak/present a platform at every event possible, so that the legwork would not depend entirely on the endurance of one person.

I would vote for YOU if you ever decided to get into it. I just don't know if I would send you that way, because like law school, I think politics does damage to good people.

[neptunia67]

Yeah. It would take a LOT of energy. And a really tough skin because you know "they" would dig up every ounce of dirt they could, and I've got plenty.

Something that really disappoints me about the candidates (all presidential candidates that I've ever known of) is that they don't seem to have any cultural understanding of the people in this country. We have so many sub-cultures that have unique values and needs. They group "Americans" into one bunch, but it is really the upper middle-class and wealthy that they address when they talk. What about all of the rest of them? I'd love to see a poor man's president.

[liveonearth]

I think that your dirt, properly excavated and presented prior to its discovery by your enemies, would serve as evidence that you understand people's struggles, and as inspiration that regular people can overcome and succeed. We live in a dysfunctional and addictive society, and the first person to address the issue productively will have quite a following. There are a lot of lower-paid, beer drinking, apolitical people out there who would respond to a straightforward candidate.