Anyone else considering voting Sceniak after Young showed us his true colors?

[BJHay]

While it may feel good at times to p*** away one's vote in a fit of pique or to proclaim one's virtue while avoiding a tough choice, is there any real virtue in doing harm to your own goals?

It's not a tough choice at all. Young and his democratic competitor are both headed in the same direction. I see no point in voting for the faster or slower one as they're both going to the same place.

And what is the remedy when voting for the lessor of two evils also leads to doing harm to your own goals?

Exactly- vote D or R. It doesn't matter because you're voting for a system that is headed in the wrong direction.
Personally I like gridlock (as Rush Limbaugh once said). Very little happens and that's good.

 

[Ingomike]

You think anyone that doesn't agree with your position on any subject is blind or some such. We all have to support the NRA. We all have to vote Republican for every office. What we all are is screwed.

Normalcy bias is rampant now…

 

[ditcherman]

It's not a tough choice at all. Young and his democratic competitor are both headed in the same direction. I see no point in voting for the faster or slower one as they're both going to the same place.


Exactly- vote D or R. It doesn't matter because you're voting for a system that is headed in the wrong direction.
Personally I like gridlock (as Rush Limbaugh once said). Very little happens and that's good.

Rush made a great point when he said a great many people think that “someone needs to do something” and that grid lock is bad, and those great many people couldn’t be more wrong.

 

[churchmouse]

No, someone tried. There were issues with Marion County verifying the signatures he turned in to them in time for the challenge to keep him off of the ballot.

I doubt he would have won, but that is something we will never know.

And the game is rigged.

 

[two70]

And what is the remedy when voting for the lessor of two evils also leads to doing harm to your own goals?

So one should vote in a way that does more harm to their own goals instead? Why, simply to assuage the desire to throw a tantrum? Are our memories so short that we will forget to vote against Young in the primaries when he has a challenger? Or is it that we are simply so short sighted that instant gratification is more important than long term goals?

The lack of a good choice is no excuse for making the worst choice

 

[ditcherman]

So one should vote in a way that does more harm to their own goals instead? Why, simply to assuage the desire to throw a tantrum? Are our memories so short that we will forget to vote against Young in the primaries when he has a challenger? Or is it that we are simply so short sighted that instant gratification is more important than long term goals?

The lack of a good choice is no excuse for making the worst choice

I think in terms of aim small miss small. All I can do is control my own target hits, and do what I can to encourage my teammates to get good hits.

The compromise between food and poison is still death.

I think if you stop seeing it as the worst choice, in such black and white terms, and consider the possibilities of us all getting together, it sounds pretty good.

The only thing that throws a wrench in my thinking is SCOTUS nominations, and that’s a big one. But if you think there is a red wage coming nationally, getting some L’s in there is safe.

 

[two70]

It's not a tough choice at all. Young and his democratic competitor are both headed in the same direction. I see no point in voting for the faster or slower one as they're both going to the same place.


Exactly- vote D or R. It doesn't matter because you're voting for a system that is headed in the wrong direction.
Personally I like gridlock (as Rush Limbaugh once said). Very little happens and that's good.

Setting aside the fallacy of your statement for a second, you will apparently vote for someone who has no realistic chance to win and who is not working as hard on his own behalf as some here who are in favor of him. How is that in any way better? By your own logic it only leads to the same destination as the other two. Now, back to the fallacy of your statement, according to the various politician grading systems, Young votes the conservative position at least 60% of the time, far from ideal or even good. However, what percentage of the time do you think the Democrat will vote in favor of conservative position, since that is the most likely alternative to be elected?

I agree that gridlock is good most of the time. If enough people think like you, you're not going to get gridlock though. You're going to get more of same Democrat control we have currently. I get being P***ed at the guy that didn't give you everything he promised but being so p***ed that you help get the guy that wants to take everything you have elected doesn't make much sense.

 

[ditcherman]

Setting aside the fallacy of your statement for a second, you will apparently vote for someone who has no realistic chance to win and who is not working as hard on his own behalf as some here who are in favor of him. How is that in any way better? By your own logic it only leads to the same destination as the other two. Now, back to the fallacy of your statement, according to the various politician grading systems, Young votes the conservative position at least 60% of the time, far from ideal or even good. However, what percentage of the time do you think the Democrat will vote in favor of conservative position, since that is the most likely alternative to be elected?

I agree that gridlock is good most of the time. If enough people think like you, you're not going to get gridlock though. You're going to get more of same Democrat control we have currently. I get being P***ed at the guy that didn't give you everything he promised but being so p***ed that you help get the guy that wants to take everything you have elected doesn't make much sense.

What if, at this point in time (not voting), we could encourage people to consider voting L and see where it all lands come voting time? If the R can see there’s a groundswell of support from the right for the L this early it could shift him a little farther right as well. Now whether that sticks or not…

I just don’t see being so hard line against the L at this point, we’re not voting, we’re talking.

 

[two70]

I think in terms of aim small miss small. All I can do is control my own target hits, and do what I can to encourage my teammates to get good hits.

The compromise between food and poison is still death.

I think if you stop seeing it as the worst choice, in such black and white terms, and consider the possibilities of us all getting together, it sounds pretty good.

The only thing that throws a wrench in my thinking is SCOTUS nominations, and that’s a big one. But if you think there is a red wage coming nationally, getting some L’s in there is safe.

IMO, its not aiming small and missing small, it's choosing to fire blindly into the air because you don't like either of the targets you're presented with.

That's an all or nothing, every problem has to be solved immediately no matter the cost way of thinking.

Even assuming that a few L's could be effective at accomplishing anything, if enough people think like that then there won't be a red wave.

 

[two70]

What if, at this point in time (not voting), we could encourage people to consider voting L and see where it all lands come voting time? If the R can see there’s a groundswell of support from the right for the L this early it could shift him a little farther right as well. Now whether that sticks or not…

I just don’t see being so hard line against the L at this point, we’re not voting, we’re talking.

I'd be more onboard with that strategy if I saw the L actually working hard to get elected or at least as hard as people on here on pushing him. If I thought doing so would cause Young to actually shift more to the right I'd be more in favor as well.

To be clear I'm not completely against the L, I'm against the thought process that we should vote L in protest.

 

[Ziggidy]

^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^

Voting to make a point or to make a statement fall on deaf ears and only bolster the Dem running for that seat.
Yes this sucks but as I already said, the game is rigged, and we have allowed this to happen.

That is ONE reason Biden is president. Mean tweets and all! As a matter of fact, many here were upset with Trumps character and openly supported Biden.

You would think CM, we would have learned from this...sadly not everyone has.

 

[Ziggidy]

The republicans need every vote they can get, yes, even the Rino's. Once a majority is in office, then we can start to weed out the Rino's; until then, all my votes go AGAINST the left - regardless who is running. We cannot knowingly allow any "left" into office. A vote for a 3rd party is a vote for the "left".

That may change in the future, but that is how I feel right now.

 

[KLB]

That is ONE reason Biden is president. Mean tweets and all! As a matter of fact, many here were upset with Trumps character and openly supported Biden.

You would think CM, we would have learned from this...sadly not everyone has.

Please enlighten us with the "many" who supported Biden here. I can remember maybe three people.

 

[Ziggidy]

Please enlighten us with the "many" who supported Biden here. I can remember maybe three people.

That's three too many!

 

[chipbennett]

The republicans need every vote they can get, yes, even the Rino's. Once a majority is in office, then we can start to weed out the Rino's; until then, all my votes go AGAINST the left - regardless who is running. We cannot knowingly allow any "left" into office. A vote for a 3rd party is a vote for the "left".

That may change in the future, but that is how I feel right now.

This is a good point. I am past the point of being enamored by any GOP at the federal level (and that is starting to make its way down to the state level). I am primarily voting against the destruction of our country, culture, and way of life that the left has been trying to accomplish for a century.

 

[ditcherman]

Once a majority is in office, then we can start to weed out the Rino's;

Haha wait wut?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Several years ago, I served as a Republican precinct committeeman. "Serving" in this capacity boiled down to "When we tell you to, we need you to drive to Indy and pay for your own parking (as opposed to making a lot available for that day for the people they knew were driving in) and come to this meeting, where a slate of candidates was presented for our "rubber stamp" vote. There was no discussion, there was no involvement of the individual PCs, we were only there to tick the box that said "The committeemen have given their approval to these candidates." It was a classic case of a meeting that could have been handled by an email. I decided that day I would never do that job again as long as that was the job description.

The solution is in fixing the "R" so that it means what it says it means: "Republican", as in one who supports and wants to continue the Republic. As it is now, the leaders in the GOP do not give us candidates that do this, in offices where we want them, and they know we don't have another real choice. Libertarians as a party are ideologically pure, but while that is their strength, in terms of people liking what they say, it is also their weakness, in that they don't compromise with others who may not be so pure, in an effort to build a coalition willing to vote them in and win an election.

When Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller, it is said he had to include the "sensitive places" language to keep Kennedy's vote which made it the majority opinion, rather than a dissent. While the dissents have some value, they aren't recorded in the "W" column. I do not like this kind of compromise, but I recognize that it's better to get most of a win than to get all of a loss.

If we can change the GOP leadership, and I have not the first clue how we would even start to do that, we can change the candidates we are offered and get people who earn our vote, not just a group that "aren't as bad as the other guys"

When you vote for the lesser of evils, you still get evil.


Blessings,
Bill

 

[BE Mike]

Several years ago, I served as a Republican precinct committeeman. "Serving" in this capacity boiled down to "When we tell you to, we need you to drive to Indy and pay for your own parking (as opposed to making a lot available for that day for the people they knew were driving in) and come to this meeting, where a slate of candidates was presented for our "rubber stamp" vote. There was no discussion, there was no involvement of the individual PCs, we were only there to tick the box that said "The committeemen have given their approval to these candidates." It was a classic case of a meeting that could have been handled by an email. I decided that day I would never do that job again as long as that was the job description.

The solution is in fixing the "R" so that it means what it says it means: "Republican", as in one who supports and wants to continue the Republic. As it is now, the leaders in the GOP do not give us candidates that do this, in offices where we want them, and they know we don't have another real choice. Libertarians as a party are ideologically pure, but while that is their strength, in terms of people liking what they say, it is also their weakness, in that they don't compromise with others who may not be so pure, in an effort to build a coalition willing to vote them in and win an election.

When Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller, it is said he had to include the "sensitive places" language to keep Kennedy's vote which made it the majority opinion, rather than a dissent. While the dissents have some value, they aren't recorded in the "W" column. I do not like this kind of compromise, but I recognize that it's better to get most of a win than to get all of a loss.

If we can change the GOP leadership, and I have not the first clue how we would even start to do that, we can change the candidates we are offered and get people who earn our vote, not just a group that "aren't as bad as the other guys"

When you vote for the lesser of evils, you still get evil.


Blessings,
Bill

I'm afraid that nearly all organizations eventually serve to maintain the control with a small group at the top. It happens in churches, clubs, school boards, et. al. There is rarely any real purpose to a job like you took on. The folks who do this regularly know this and think of it as a time to party. Thanks for your experience. It does serve to wake up the masses.

 

[ditcherman]

Several years ago, I served as a Republican precinct committeeman. "Serving" in this capacity boiled down to "When we tell you to, we need you to drive to Indy and pay for your own parking (as opposed to making a lot available for that day for the people they knew were driving in) and come to this meeting, where a slate of candidates was presented for our "rubber stamp" vote. There was no discussion, there was no involvement of the individual PCs, we were only there to tick the box that said "The committeemen have given their approval to these candidates." It was a classic case of a meeting that could have been handled by an email. I decided that day I would never do that job again as long as that was the job description.

The solution is in fixing the "R" so that it means what it says it means: "Republican", as in one who supports and wants to continue the Republic. As it is now, the leaders in the GOP do not give us candidates that do this, in offices where we want them, and they know we don't have another real choice. Libertarians as a party are ideologically pure, but while that is their strength, in terms of people liking what they say, it is also their weakness, in that they don't compromise with others who may not be so pure, in an effort to build a coalition willing to vote them in and win an election.

When Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller, it is said he had to include the "sensitive places" language to keep Kennedy's vote which made it the majority opinion, rather than a dissent. While the dissents have some value, they aren't recorded in the "W" column. I do not like this kind of compromise, but I recognize that it's better to get most of a win than to get all of a loss.

If we can change the GOP leadership, and I have not the first clue how we would even start to do that, we can change the candidates we are offered and get people who earn our vote, not just a group that "aren't as bad as the other guys"

When you vote for the lesser of evils, you still get evil.


Blessings,
Bill

Very well said!
It’s an interesting use of words, however, to read libertarians “ideologically pure” and “don’t compromise”. I think I get what your saying, but I also think that there are many R’s (and D’s on the other end) who wouldn’t vote for them because they come across as impure and compromising to the ‘mainline’ beliefs. In some ways this is the hurdle, to get people to not let perfect get in the way of good.

 

[Shadow01]

So instead of voting for Young, you'll vote for an independent or libertarian that doesn't have a snowballs chance in h*ll of winning, just to make a point?

I'm sure the Democrat running against Young will appreciate your gesture...

Is there really any true difference between young and a democrat?