Super Tuesday Primary

[Kat]

If you had to vote for one of the remaining candidates on Super Tuesday, who would it be?

[mvir9]

I'm once again focused on picking the lesser of two evils. I wonder what it feels like to be able to fully support a candidate that actually has the potential to win the White House?!

[sjw]

I'm once again focused on picking the lesser of two evils. I wonder what it feels like to be able to fully support a candidate that actually has the potential to win the White House?!

It feels good to support Ron Paul!

Shayne

[Chris Grieb]

Kat; How about the question which candidate do you dislike or fear the most. I think for me it is McCain.

[jordanz]

I've already voted absentee (California) and I voted Obama. I'd registered Democrat this past Summer so that I could have the satisfaction of voting against Hillary. I didn't realize at that time that I'd be voting for my preferred candidate of the ones left. I can't believe how depressing this is. I truly hope that Obama wins, though. If he gets the Demo nomination I will vote for him in November. If Hillary gets the nomination and McCain gets the GOP, I will abstain.

[Selene]

I've already voted absentee (California) and I voted Obama. I'd registered Democrat this past Summer so that I could have the satisfaction of voting against Hillary. I didn't realize at that time that I'd be voting for my preferred candidate of the ones left. I can't believe how depressing this is. I truly hope that Obama wins, though. If he gets the Demo nomination I will vote for him in November. If Hillary gets the nomination and McCain gets the GOP, I will abstain.

Excellent choice.

[Mikee]

I know I haven't been around for awhile, but exactly what is the appeal of Barack Obama? I browsed his website: empty promises, all based on government tax and spend and bureaucratic regulation. Hillary frightens me less.

[sjw]

I know I haven't been around for awhile, but exactly what is the appeal of Barack Obama? I browsed his website: empty promises, all based on government tax and spend and bureaucratic regulation. Hillary frightens me less.

He's just like all the other candidates--except Ron Paul.

I am disgusted with the Objectivist movement--both ARI and TAS--for failing to support Ron Paul. I am also disgusted by their cowardly evasion of his foreign policy positions. To name three prominent cowards: Bidinotto, Peikoff, Tracinski.

I used to agree with the Objectivist status quo. Peikoff's NYT article had me suckered, I admit. But there's a single simple premise that demolishes it: Our government has no business protecting the interests of those who undertake business activities on foreign soil. That is tantamount to making the taxpayer and military slaves to that business. It wasn't "our" oil that was being defended, it was some businessman's--and he paid nothing for the free militia we sent.

I'm absolutely disgusted. Objectivists should have known better. I'll take the Christian Ron Paul over the sorry excuse for Objectivist leadership we have any day. And as if that weren't bad enough, these sorry excuses for "rational" human beings can't even admit it when they were so wrong. So much for introspection, rationality, pride, honesty, justice, integrity, and self-esteem. What a bunch of hypocrites.

Shayne

[Selene]

I know I haven't been around for awhile, but exactly what is the appeal of Barack Obama? I browsed his website: empty promises, all based on government tax and spend and bureaucratic regulation. Hillary frightens me less.

His appeal is his charismatic approach to a "new American face" to the world. His policies are extreme left wing. He is also representative of a generational shift in American politics. However, most importantly, he is not Hilarie Clinton.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

I know I haven't been around for awhile, but exactly what is the appeal of Barack Obama? I browsed his website: empty promises, all based on government tax and spend and bureaucratic regulation. Hillary frightens me less.

He's just like all the other candidates--except Ron Paul.

I am disgusted with the Objectivist movement--both ARI and TAS--for failing to support Ron Paul. I am also disgusted by their cowardly evasion of his foreign policy positions. To name three prominent cowards: Bidinotto, Peikoff, Tracinski.

I used to agree with the Objectivist status quo. Peikoff's NYT article had me suckered, I admit. But there's a single simple premise that demolishes it: Our government has no business protecting the interests of those who undertake business activities on foreign soil. That is tantamount to making the taxpayer and military slaves to that business. It wasn't "our" oil that was being defended, it was some businessman's--and he paid nothing for the free militia we sent.

I'm absolutely disgusted. Objectivists should have known better. I'll take the Christian Ron Paul over the sorry excuse for Objectivist leadership we have any day. And as if that weren't bad enough, these sorry excuses for "rational" human beings can't even admit it when they were so wrong. So much for introspection, rationality, pride, honesty, justice, integrity, and self-esteem. What a bunch of hypocrites.

Shayne

Shayne,

Is it possible that Peikoff, Tracinski and Bidinotto are not cowards or hypocrites on this matter, but simply disagree with you?

Jim

[sjw]

Is it possible that Peikoff, Tracinski and Bidinotto are not cowards or hypocrites on this matter, but simply disagree with you?

"Simply disagree"? As if "simple disagreement" is a magic wand that sweeps away all culpability, all responsibility for due diligence in making sure your ideas are correct. What an asinine question.

Shayne

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Is it possible that Peikoff, Tracinski and Bidinotto are not cowards or hypocrites on this matter, but simply disagree with you?

"Simply disagree"? As if "simple disagreement" is a magic wand that sweeps away all culpability, all responsibility for due diligence in making sure your ideas are correct. What an asinine question.

Shayne

Shayne,

I disagree with Ron Paul on abortion, on immigration, on whether there is a higher power. Should I find him culpable and suggest that he has not exercised due diligence in making sure his ideas are correct? Or simply say that he is wrong and not speculate on the psychological motives for his error.

Jim

[sjw]

I disagree with Ron Paul on abortion, on immigration, on whether there is a higher power. Should I find him culpable and suggest that he has not exercised due diligence in making sure his ideas are correct? Or simply say that he is wrong and not speculate on the psychological motives for his error.

You don't even know what Ron Paul's position on immigration is. And whether he believes in a higher power is nothing compared to pushing for foreign policies that bankrupt our nation and kill our soldiers. Don't talk to me about "due diligence", you have no idea what the concept even refers to.

Shayne

[James Heaps-Nelson]

I disagree with Ron Paul on abortion, on immigration, on whether there is a higher power. Should I find him culpable and suggest that he has not exercised due diligence in making sure his ideas are correct? Or simply say that he is wrong and not speculate on the psychological motives for his error.

You don't even know what Ron Paul's position on immigration is. And whether he believes in a higher power is nothing compared to pushing for foreign policies that bankrupt our nation and kill our soldiers. Don't talk to me about "due diligence", you have no idea what the concept even refers to.

Shayne

Shayne,

You said that Peikoff, Tracinski, and Bidinotto were cowards for taking a political position against Ron Paul. They all have different foreign policy prescriptions and probably different political recommendations for voters. However mistaken they might be, I fail to see how they are cowardly. I didn't bring up the concept of due diligence, you did and you were the one who charged these men with cowardice and didn't establish your claim.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

Coward and hypocrite are not only strong and insulting terms, I believe they are incorrect for the people you named.

From what I see, they understand that one Objectivist principle (or more) takes precedence over another in the present context. I don't see them as unprincipled, but instead as analyzing the context differently than you do. I certainly don't see them running from people or from issues. All three have been very clear and public about their positions, and they presented their reasons and principles in unmistakable terms. I see nothing in them that leads me to doubt their sincerity. They write as they think and believe.

I feel your pain and frustration, but I do not want to get into the specific issues since I believe almost everybody oversimplifies during elections to the point of stepping outside reality. And I don't like the way people get demonized in the scramble for votes. (I do my demonizing for better reasons. )

I also understand your desire to get their attention, since they are spokesmen for Objectivism. Strong terms will do that, but the wrong strong terms can be easily dismissed. Coward and hypocrite are cognitively wrong.

I believe a strong term should highlight the difference in principles you have with them, not lack of principles altogether. For instance, "traditional conservative in Objectivist garb" or something like that. (Not that I believe that about them, but this is a good illustrative example if you are focusing only on foreign policy.) If you want to get creative, you can get quite biting with this approach and have far greater effect than using the wrong term, for as insulting as it may be.

Michael

[sjw]

Michael, Tracinski evaded Ron Paul's argument by calling him names and then dismissing him, Bidinotto juxtaposes Ron Paul with the symbol of death on his magazine as a substitute for addressing his arguments, and Peikoff is holed up somewhere ignoring everything that's going on in this election even though Ron Paul has successfully rallied enormous and unprecedented support for the cause of the Founding Fathers that Objectivists allegedly support.

So I think "coward" and "hypocrite" are apt terms. Traitorous is apt as well. History is not going to look kindly on the Objectivist movement.

Shayne

"If the Framers of the Constitution were somehow to come back, Ron Paul is one of possibly only three people in Congress that they’d even talk to." ~ Walter Williams

[Wolf DeVoon]

Ron Paul has successfully rallied enormous and unprecedented support for the cause of the Founding Fathers

Um... no. Ron Paul basically failed. He was too old, too dotty, and it's over. Sorry. You're right about the second-hand Objectivist peacocks, I think, but invective sounds shrill. Anyway, it's over. There won't be any 'brokered' convention. Commander McPain will be the next (and maybe last) uberfuhrer, 50.1/49.9

The United States will finally get the government it deserves.

W.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If only a Patrick Henry could appear again...

I see Ayn Rand in that light, except she was not a politician.

Michael

[sjw]

Ron Paul has successfully rallied enormous and unprecedented support for the cause of the Founding Fathers

Um... no. Ron Paul basically failed.

He did not fail at what I said he accomplished. Don't be so presumptuous attribute Pollyannaism to me. Or to Ron Paul for that matter.

He was too old, too dotty, and it's over. Sorry. <snip> Anyway, it's over. There won't be any 'brokered' convention. Commander McPain will be the next (and maybe last) uberfuhrer, 50.1/49.9

The United States will finally get the government it deserves.

Why do you think there will be a GOP win? A good fraction of the GOP is ready to vote for Hillary/Obama if McCain wins.

You're right about the second-hand Objectivist peacocks, I think, but invective sounds shrill.

It only sounds "shrill" to you because you don't understand the damage they've done and continue to do. You regard them as unimportant and harmless. I disagree.

Shayne

[Wolf DeVoon]

Shayne,

Honest and forthright as possible, I am a friend and ally. Not asking you to agree with me.

W.

[sjw]

Shayne,

Honest and forthright as possible, I am a friend and ally. Not asking you to agree with me.

W.

Wolf I regard you as an ally as well. My response was meant to be directed to the ideas you were expressing not to you personally.

Shayne

[Wolf DeVoon]

Commander McPain will be the next (and maybe last) uberfuhrer, 50.1/49.9

The United States will finally get the government it deserves.

Why do you think there will be a GOP win? A good fraction of the GOP is ready to vote for Hillary/Obama if McCain wins.

It was Bush 50.1 Kerry 49.9, and I don't think anything changed. Hillary can't win because she's an evil snake, nobody wants Bill back in the White House, and Obama will be Swift-boated or Willie Hortoned, and failing that the CIA can stage a September surprise. The Dems are committed to withdrawing from Iraq, McPain says 'never surrender.' I don't see how AIPAC can fail. The GOP campaign is being professionally managed and McPain's speeches are being written for him (you can see it happening already - no more ad lib remarks). My opinion anyway. Might be the last general election in U.S. history.

W.

[sjw]

Why do you think there will be a GOP win? A good fraction of the GOP is ready to vote for Hillary/Obama if McCain wins.

It was Bush 50.1 Kerry 49.9, and I don't think anything changed. Hillary can't win because she's an evil snake, nobody wants Bill back in the White House, and Obama will be Swift-boated or Willie Hortoned, and failing that the CIA can stage a September surprise. The Dems are committed to withdrawing from Iraq, McPain says 'never surrender.' I don't see how AIPAC can fail. The GOP campaign is being professionally managed and McPain's speeches are being written for him (you can see it happening already - no more ad lib remarks). My opinion anyway. Might be the last general election in U.S. history.

W.

Wolf, if they can rig elections as you are claiming, then why bother abolishing general elections?

Shayne

[Wolf DeVoon]

Wolf, if they can rig elections as you are claiming, then why bother abolishing general elections?

It depends on how crazy it gets economically. The point of Frank Capra's Depression-era Meet John Doe was manipulation not unlike the rise of fascism in Italy and Germany. Ditto Sinclair Lewis' It Can't Happen Here. Emergency powers and executive privilege worry the hell out of me. But it's the Global War on Everything Forever that makes it such a serious threat to constitutional democracy, precisely as Ron Paul rightly complained.

W.

[Selene]

Michael, Tracinski evaded Ron Paul's argument by calling him names and then dismissing him, Bidinotto juxtaposes Ron Paul with the symbol of death on his magazine as a substitute for addressing his arguments, and Peikoff is holed up somewhere ignoring everything that's going on in this election even though Ron Paul has successfully rallied enormous and unprecedented support for the cause of the Founding Fathers that Objectivists allegedly support.

So I think "coward" and "hypocrite" are apt terms. Traitorous is apt as well. History is not going to look kindly on the Objectivist movement.

Shayne

"If the Framers of the Constitution were somehow to come back, Ron Paul is one of possibly only three people in Congress that they’d even talk to." ~ Walter Williams

Dude. Chill. This is "grandpa" talking. Napoleon is alleged to have said that "...history is written by the victors!." Out of curiosity, how old are you? I love your passion.