Tsk, tsk.
Appearance? Sorry, we all can't be Ryan Reynolds. Very shallow.
He does look a little like the vampire uncle in the Munsters, though.

Grumble, grumble, hrrumph.

I was anticipating your reply because you
stated in the past about ending your correc-
tions and you came through!! YAY!!!

"A consummation devoutly to be wished."

Which is why I have been putting together escape to Atlantis plans for Gulchers for over a year.

We have grammarians!
Hoooray!
When I first came to the Gulch I was always correcting. After a while it became embarrassing so I stopped. Nice to see folks who care about our beautiful language.

OK. Point well taken.
However, it doesn't change my view that the issues in this election are so crucial, that everything that can be done, even in the smallest way, should be put forth to stop Clinton. If that happens, and the situation in Washington shows a change in the proper direction, I might modify my attitude. But for now, we must stop Clinton or I truly believe it's over - or will be in 8 years.

I was one of those in FL voting libertarian. I caught a lot of grief for that at the lunch table. The difference in FL was 555 votes.

My logic goes as follows:

My vote won’t make any difference in the outcome of the presidential election. Therefore, I should vote for the person who best represents my views. (For me, that’s always the Libertarian candidate.) By doing so, I am adding in a small way to his/her vote totals. The more votes the Libertarian candidate receives, the more the Libertarian Party’s reputation and influence will grow.

Gary Johnson polled at 11% in a recent survey. Although that’s merely a placeholder vote for now, it indicates that many people are dissatisfied with the two “major” parties and are looking for alternatives. Every vote for a Libertarian raises the legitimacy of the LP in the eyes of the public, while voting for either major party candidate just helps solidify the two-party system’s hold on America.

Really? By your logic no one should vote. I think you are an intelligent person. You know what I meant. Let's not get entangled in semantics.

A vote that counts? When is the last time your lone vote, or anyone else's, changed the outcome of a presidential election? A single vote would not have made a difference even in Florida, land of the hanging chad.

Roger, that.
Especially the whining.
Suck it up and get to work, we are at a crucial crossroad.

Go to it. Vote for who you want. Certainly if after looking at what Obama has done in the last 7.5 years, you don't think a vote that counts is crucial, it is certainly your prerogative.

That is the same old argument that let the statists keep control for the past 100 years.
Until you act in accordance with your principles it will continue. (Not to single you out Herb, the same reason applies to everyone.)
You vote for slavery, you must take responsibility for your consent to it.
Resistance is imperative, regardless of how unlikely the apparent probability.
Probabilities change with every person who votes for principle instead of in fear.

Did the USA survive Lyndon Johnson? I argue that Lyndon Johnson was the beginning of the end. We are still paying for his agenda.

"Should have" is the way to go...."of" is soooo
often incorrectly used!

I've been hearing the same argument since my first presidential election (Goldwater vs. Johnson). If the USA can survive Lyndon Johnson, Obama and every democrat (and republican) in between, it can survive most anything.

I would rather vote my convictions than be pressured by fear into always voting for "more of the same" as the only alternative to Armageddon.

Hmmm.
You may well be right. That is, in the case of the USA today. It wasn't always that way.

If Mr. Johnson gets 100 million votes I will put him in my will. Are you dreaming? Do you not realize that if Clinton becomes the president, between her non-ideology, dishonesty and incompetence, it will end the USA?

No, not the same. 100 million non votes do nothing to change the power structure. 100 million votes for Gary Johnson rip the heart out of the statist monopoly.

I previously posted this on this forum.

Friends:

This article is directed toward Objectivists in response to a recent post on the "Galts Gulch" site, wherein the author summarily dismisses Ben Carson as worthy of political consideration.

Several years ago, as Sarah Palin had become thrust onto the national stage, I was asked by a fairly liberal friend, "you wouldn't really vote for her would you?" I stared at him replying, "as opposed to whom?" Caught somewhat off guard he responded, "Well I mean, she is little more than an attractive idiot." I replied, "what if she were running against an ugly moron?"

Ayn Rand's influence on my values, specifically how they must be derived, leading to what they will therefore become, has been of incalculable benefit. I say this because she taught me the importance of ideas! She did so through rationally forcing me to understand that “non-contradictory identification” and the proper (pro-life as she termed it) embrace of values, leads to consistent actions that produce happiness and fulfillment. In summation - and fundamental to the value of excitedly, joyously, passionately, filling-in the rest of the blanks in the endless crossword puzzle of life, that this was the purpose of philosophy.

Though her impact on many of us was equally profound, she was, despite the early worship of her by many of her students - myself included, neither a god nor always wise in her actions. She made errors. Her incessant focus on God and religion when wading into politics, rather than maintaining the focus on individual freedom was one such example. (Please choose NOT to remind me of Rand’s epistemological rigor and her ruthlessly logical tracing of the issue to its metaphysical roots. I am dwelling “contextually” in politics, specifically NOT in absolutes.) Nonetheless, she will one day be judged as one of the greatest intellectual minds in history. Meanwhile…….

One manifestation of said error, not coincidentally, subsequent to her shameful treatment by William F. Buckley and most conservatives, was her vocal criticism of Barry Goldwater. She was adamant in her condemnation and rejection of him.

Here is a quote of Senator Goldwater’s, circa early 60’s.

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."

Rand was certainly correct of course regarding Goldwater, in that as an inconsistent advocate of freedom he would invariably undermine his own arguments. However, will anyone seriously argue that our nation would be similarly down the destructive road it has taken had the electorate instead chosen Goldwater rather than Lyndon “Guns & Butter/Great Society” Johnson? Barring nuclear exchange, it is almost unimaginable we would be.

Carson will not likely get the nomination. His responses to both the war on drugs, which he indicates he would “intensify,” and his strategy for dealing with political correctness in education (he wishes to appoint some sort of conservative “overseer” within the Department of Education to “correct” current “incorrectness”), have helped assure that he will unceremoniously fade.

However, if faced with a choice between Hillary and Ben, what would you do?

I’ll close with two recommendations, specifically directed at Objectivists,.

1. Lead with your life and not your mouth. As is the case with a picture, an example is worth 10,000 words. When you choose to lead with the latter, skip to number 2.

2. KNOW your audience! We live in a society that, in significant measure, is dominated by Judeo-Christian philosophy. Therefore there is a tendency for many of us to become pessimistic and caustic. While I do at times lapse into pessimism, I try, though not always successfully, to never become caustic.(Keep in mind, the virtue of pessimism is that most of your surprises tend to be favorable.) Always remain benevolently open to such surprises. Depending on YOUR virtue(s), favorable surprises come more often than you might imagine – as long as, through the exercise of rational virtue(s), you EARN THEM!

Dave

Is your "Should of" meant to be "Should've"?

yes;;; I am starting to get vertigo, looking over the precipice. -- j
.