hey, I like this post, can't argue with it. But I didn't like the previous post, obviously, so... um... I don't know. But one thing's for sure, you would be a hypocrite if you voted D the last several pres elections
+
I wasn't old enough to vote. But, I didn't support Obama. I supported Gary Johnson. I'm somewhat iffy on that now. I know he's technically "pro-choice" but his version of being "pro-choice" was basically "I'll be as pro-life as the average Republican but I'll be honest about the fact that that doesn't actually mean banning abortion." As governor of New Mexico he signed every bill the pro-life groups asked him to sign. The main reason why I could tolerate voting for him despite his weak abortion stance is that he would leave abortion to the states. So at least we could fight to ban abortion in some states, which would be movement in the right direction. I could respect someone who doesn't want to do that, but that's basically what politics is. There is nothing perfect about it (Ron Paul was pretty darn close in policy terms, though still not absolutely perfect. He's also incredibly rare.)
But the thing is, he's also a lot better than most Republicans on other issues. He's against torture. He's against collateral damage. He's in favor of cutting government spending by 43%. He supports legalizing marijuana (smaller government.) He is against all gun control, which Romney clearly was not. He's in favor of repealing the Patriot Act and toning down the surveilance state. I'm not saying Johnson was the ideal candidate. He supported "FairTax" which is a bad idea because it makes tax collecting easier and makes some people pay more taxes (taxes should be reduced on everyone, ideally to 0%.) He supports making a federal law that legalizes gay marriage, while gay marriage is constitutionally a state issue and ideally government would not get involved in the marriage debate (which is different than government endorsing gay marriages.) He doesn't want to legalize all drugs (not small government enough.) He didn't seem to want to cut government spending by more than 43%. So, I'm not saying Johnson was perfect. I do think he would have actually moved America in a positive direction rather than simply, at best, moving America in a negative direction more slowly (which is the absolute best Romney might have done.)
The counter-argument would be that Gary Johnson had no chance to win. While true, I believe this argument is invalid for several reasons.
First of all, Mitt Romney was an evil candidate. Because he was an evil candidate, it would be wrong, per Romans 3:8, to vote for him (note: In saying that Romney was an evil candidate, I am not denying that Obama was an evil candidate) no matter what the results would be I say Gary Johnson wasn't an evil candidate, because, while not perfect, he would actually have reduced government control across the board. Romney, by contrast, did want to reduce government in some areas, but he actually wanted to expand it in others. He would increase the degree by which government would control our lives. And, he didn't think Obama was killing enough people overseas, he would have killed more. That's evil.
Second of all, pragmatically, voting for Romney would not be a means to the end of more liberty for Americans and American lives saved.
Third of all, continuing to vote for lame Republican candidates tells the Republicans that you are happy with the candidates they are giving you. If Gary Johnson were to have gotten 5% of the vote and Obama won by 4%, that would have told the Republicans they need to do something different, move closer to Johnson's platform, in order to win.
I think your issue with me is not so much my views as that I don't want to elect Republicans. But I think I have good reasons for not doing so.
