National Youth Rights Association

SomebodySmart said:

Ron Paul is AGAINST federal highway construction grants to the States. Ron Paul is FOR liberty. Mittens and Oh-bummer are not.
If you vote for Mittens or Oh-bummer it's your fault Johnson does not get elected, and you are personally responsible for all the misdeeds you enable by voting wrong.

first off, you're anti-highway? in what universe does making it more difficult for people to travel increase their liberty?

second, personally responsible? that is absurd. by that logic, anyone who votes for johnson or paul is also personally responsible for what the victor (who won't be johnson or paul) does. if you are worried about not supporting the government doing things you oppose, don't vote. if you want to keep the country from sliding to hell in the short term, pick which of the two candidates who might actually win you think will be better (or less worse, at any rate).

Post edited 10:42 pm – June 16, 2012 by kingnixon

wedway said:

kingnixon said:

first off, you're anti-highway? in what universe does making it more difficult for people to travel increase their liberty?

He didn't say he was anti-highway, he stated that he agreed with Ron Paul in regards to being against federal highway construction grants, and for good reason. May I remind you that the federal government threatening the states with cuts to their federal highway construction grants is one of the largest issues behind the National Minimum Drinking Age Act? If the states were to run their highways independent from federal grants, this problem wouldn't exist.

if i go to work tomorrow and my boss says i can't get paid unless i do some unpaid overtime, that is a reason to be against my boss and against unpaid overtime but not against wages. if ron paul were against the minimum drinking age act, or against threatening to cut off highway grants to enforce it, i would support him on that. but federal highway grants themselves are absolutely a good thing, a lot of the states probably wouldn't even bother otherwise; places can't afford to take care of their own roads, you think they're going to spend state money on highways?

if you are worried about not supporting the government doing things you oppose, don't vote.

And not voting will solve people's griefs with government how?

it won't at all, but we were talking about being personally responsible for what the government does. voters lend credence to the system regardless of who wins. you are taking part in representative democracy and (so the argument goes) implicitly agreeing to be represented by the victor even if they are anathema to you.

if you want to keep the country from sliding to hell in the short term, pick which of the two candidates who might actually win you think will be better (or less worse, at any rate).

It's that very attitude which has us constantly voting between the lesser of two evils in the first place. It's the unfortunate mindset of most voters that they must choose between the two most powerful parties or else waste their vote. Sorry, but I feel no obligation to choose between the two ruling parties if I dislike both of their candidates. I'm going to vote for the guy whose policies I agree with and if that means I'm wasting my vote, then so be it.

right, that's why i started that sentence with the IF clause. if you have different goals then you'll have different plans, that's fine.

Post edited 8:16 am – June 17, 2012 by HardyMacia

The revolution is about to switch over to supporting Gov Gary Johnson. Paul has done everything short of drop out. Paul will stick through to the GOP convention in Tampa, but that will be it then most of us will be switching to over to Gary Johnson who will be on the ballot in all 50 states and has endorsed Paul twice now.