[duhhaayuk]

if McCain wins and [fornicates on our dreams like a drunken sailor] it up, that means instead of the devs [acting like a rutting bull] up when they have full control in 2009, they will [have done us dry] up when they have control 4 years afterwards. but these next 4 years, there can easily be 2 supreme court justices to be appointed, so i think its best we win this next term

Personally, I think throwing elections for the sake of deliberately screwing up your own nation is not only wrong, but just downright pathetic.

You're assuming that if a candidate you oppose gets elected, he'll screw up the nation enough to justify him getting out of office, yet not enough to jeopardize the nation itself.  That's just insane, especially nowadays.  Unlike 50 years ago, if a president screws up for 4 years, their nation will end up left behind through economic, military, or technological inferiority.

Not only that, you're deliberately voting disingenuously, which completely undermines the democratic process.  When you vote for somebody, you endorse that person's future actions over the next four years, as opposed to the actions of that person's opponents.  If you endorse someone even though you know they'll screw up the country, that president's future wrongs can be blamed squarely on you, even if you weren't a large enough influence in the election.  Essentially, you justify deliberate immoral acts for the purpose of showing people that those actions are immoral.

Vote for who you think should actually win the election.  Otherwise, you're no longer looking out for the interests of the nation.

Oh, and a couple other things to mention:

1: While in office, Obama could change various laws in order to deliberately allow Democrats to get in office easier in 2012.  For example, the Fairness Doctrine, changes in voting requirements, changes in campaign financing laws, etc., could create a de facto system that locks down elections in favor of Democrats due to demographic trends.

2: Obama doesn't need to appeal the entire nation to win again in 2012.  He only needs to appease enough people to get the majority of the electoral college.  As long as he appeases particular populations, he can win regardless of what is done in other regions.

3: You also assume that his policies would be short term failures, rather than long term ones.  A good example of this would be education.  If you assume that his policy would be a failure in the end (I'm not debating whether Obama will be a failure for this thread), nobody would see the negative effects for a long time, because it takes time for the education system to generate results.  The same can be applied for such areas as health care, technology research, and even foreign policy.

"Not only that, you're deliberately voting disingenuously, which completely undermines the democratic process.  When you vote for somebody, you endorse that person's future actions over the next four years, as opposed to the actions of that person's opponents.  If you endorse someone even though you know they'll screw up the country, that president's future wrongs can be blamed squarely on you, even if you weren't a large enough influence in the election."

That's exactly why I'm no longer a Republican and why I won't vote McCain.  I won't vote Obama.  I think I'll leave that slot blank.

Besides I don't think this is going to be close, really.

At what point can a forum poster become designated as an Obama advertising spambot? 

> TheYell wrote:

> If he actually... no  I won't say it, he'd do it.

"1: While in office, Obama could change various laws in order to deliberately allow Democrats to get in office easier in 2012.  For example, the Fairness Doctrine, changes in voting requirements, changes in campaign financing laws, etc., could create a de facto system that locks down elections in favor of Democrats due to demographic trends."

That could be fought and overcome. 

Not when you just handed the country over to someone deliberately.  Two reasons why:
1: His political power is perceived as being much more than it otherwise would be, to where it becomes political suicide to oppose him, as a result of the lack of a structured opposition to Obama.
2: It's called straight-ticket voting.  When people vote for a President, they also tend to vote for the same party for House and Senate.  So you further solidify the Democrat's power in the House and Senate, so you can't fight it.

"2: Obama doesn't need to appeal the entire nation to win again in 2012.  He only needs to appease enough people to get the majority of the electoral college.  As long as he appeases particular populations, he can win regardless of what is done in other regions."

I'm mad that a liberal can even get 45% of the country in polls.  Clearly we have failed to educate people about liberalism.  If they really will propel a liberal into office they must bear responsibility for it.

Then win the election and show how running a country is done.  Or elect a moderate and clearly show when his policies are in conflict with your own.  Conservatives did this with Bush on immigration.

"3: You also assume that his policies would be short term failures, rather than long term ones.  A good example of this would be education.  If you assume that his policy would be a failure in the end (I'm not debating whether Obama will be a failure for this thread), nobody would see the negative effects for a long time, because it takes time for the education system to generate results.  The same can be applied for such areas as health care, technology research, and even foreign policy."

Whatever policies he puts in place can be undone by an opposition truly determined to undo them.

No, no, you're not understanding.  The surrender theory assumes that the policies will be short term failures so that they immediately create a reaction by the populous that the policies were a failure.  That's what I'm challenging.  The drawbacks and benefits of most policies are long term, not short term.  As a result, any Obama screw-ups could easily not be perceived by the time the 2012 election comes, so you never "destroy" Obama.

In addition, the first argument I presented answers this: Obama can format the 2012 election in favor of Democrats, so your opposition can't take power anyway.

> BC Teufelshund (DevilDog) wrote:

> Zarf, you need to read what I said, not make things up.

I did not say this is what = am doing. i did not say I would vote for Obama. When I say throw the election, I mean just leave President blank. Or vote for another party. I don't like McCain much

Doesn't matter.  It still applies.  If I see someone break into your house and I turn away, it's no better than if I were to give him the keys to your front door.

I didn't necessarily say that you were doing this.  Any reference to "you" is a reference to "the person voting disingenuously."  Sorry for that mix-up.

But anyway, it's still a dumb idea.

You won't get it by surrendering to Obama in '08 either, as I've explained.

Then answer the points I said above.  I've got about 4 reasons above that say you're just wrong here.

You would.

Zarf I feel you, that is where I was in 2006. But afterwards I felt the scorn of RINOs who blamed me and my honest conservative brothers for the hosing the Party took in November. I got told too often that -I-, Mr Republican, who was in the street in 1994 to rout Der Schlickmeister, was a drag on the Party. The Party couldn't afford to care about right v wrong. The Party expected me to support the Party no matter what. And then I heard it from on high. Hagel on Iraq. Specter on aborton. McCain and Bush on immigration. Rice on Hamas. Lott and Delay on pork. These were enemy positions that my Party found perfectly acceptable. That isn't why I defended the GOP to friends and family for 20 years. The purely partisan spin is pointless. The ideological battle requires a blunt separation from an organization that is no longer our vehicle.

Zarf wrote....

"1: Why the hell can't the GOP win back the House and Senate?  Look, the GOP increased the number of senators and representatives in 2004 when the presidential election was taking place.  In addition, while the House is going to be a tough call to beat, the Senate isn't too bad of a fight for Republicans, with a 49/49 divide currently, although it'll be an uphill fight since the GOP has more incumbents to defend than the Dems.  But the principle still stands that people tend to favor the senate candidates of the same party as their presidential candidates.  Knowing that, you can take back the Senate by promoting McCain."

We cannot win because people are not happy with Republicans. That is why we lost both in 2006. If we are to win back majority, the people in the house and senate need to return to their base and be true conservatives. Unless they do this, we will not win. I am a conservative, so I would like us to take them back, don't get me wrong. But I can see where people have a problem with our party, and until that is rectified we will continue to be the minority.

"1: If the media is left biased and powerful enough to do that, wouldn't that mean the conservative movement can't win anyway, because the media would simply overlook anything good that was done during a McCain presidency, and emphasize all the good things done during an Obama presidency?  But if there is a way to overcome media bias, can't that same tool be used like it was in the immigration debates of today, to pressure McCain on the issues which conservatives disagree based upon?"

No, not at all. We actually have a few things working for us. 1) Fox news. They are fair and actually show both sides. They have great ratings, so we actually have a lot of ppl that watch. 2) We have the radio. That is our power house. People like Sean Hannidy, Rush, Bill O'Reilly, and many more are great people to listen that will actually be honest.
Network news (especailly MSNBC) are starting to lose ratings. A lot of ppl are seeing the lies.

"1: The media contradiction still exists here.  Your scenario is based on the media's power.  If the media powerful, your scenario is inevitable.  If other agents can overcome the media, then they can separate themselves from McCain on the issues about which they disagree with him."

READ ABOVE

"1: Wouldn't the media just spin the bad news, just like they've spun good news into bad news?"

NO, not at all. That is the point. If McCain were pres and screwed up, it would be easy. But if Obama is president, they can try to spin all they like. The point of the matter is dems control the white house and dems control the house and senate. They could say what ever they like, but there will be no possible way to blame it on Republicans as it is not possible for it to have been us. We are not in power, they are. There is no way around that, and the ppl know who is in power.

"Not really.  You're still de facto supporting him for President in 2008, even if it's through silent consent.  Therefore, you're still responsible for the harms he brings."

Not true. If I do not like either candidate and do not vote, I do not support anyone. I do not support Obama or McCain. I simply will have had no vote. That would be like saying a 7 year old who cannot vote and wants Obama is partly responsible for what he does wrong. I would not want Obama no matter what, I would just rather it be them that screws up and not us. I think that makes a bit more sense.