- This topic has 83 replies, 37 voices, and was last updated 12 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
Im just curios who the oilem here wants to win.
Im Romney –
Barry Goldwater.
MITT ROMNEY- What’s the question??? I hope not one of you even think of voting for Obama!!! After he wins the election in November- he is gonna start trouble-I’m warning you!!!!!!
neither
Romney Ryan ’13!!!!! Mitt all the way please Gd, don’t let Obama have a second chance. Once he has no election to worry about, we will really see what he is about and he is dangerous.
romney
brilliant, tonks
romney
brilliant, tonks
The sad truth here is that people vote selfishly, without a global perspective. If the vote was about getting the person best suited to get this country back on the right track, to improve the job situation and the economy as a whole, to reduce the insurmountable debt we carry (and the inevitable consequences), to regain our position as a global superpower, to once again demonstrate that we are clearly against terrorism (and not apologize for it), then there would be no question of Romney winning.
Unfortunately, about half of the country only cares about getting more for themselves. More handouts, more services, more “free stuff”. These people don’t seem to understand that these funds have to come from somewhere (i.e. taxpayers) and with the way things are going, the number of people contributing to the pool is shrinking. A case in point, there was a woman on the radio last week who got a free cellphone and was saying “Obama gave me a free phone!!! I love Obama”. The problem is that Obama didn’t give her anything, I (and other taxpayers) GAVE IT to her – Obama TOOK IT FROM ME, and he intends on taking more and more until once of two things happens – I move away or I stop working and start taking. Anyone who manages a household knows it is impossible to keep up.
I don’t think that it is even worth mentioning his foreign policy, which not only makes America look weak and impotent but is detrimental to the existence of Israel and the millions of Jews living there. I don’t care if you believe in the state, you can at least agree that millions of Jewish people will lose their lives if Iran gets its way. Surely that still means something.
I just hope that enough people gain the clarity necessary to make the right choice in november
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates
who promise the most benefits from the public treasury,
with the result that every democracy will finally collapse
– Alexander Tytler 1787
– Thomas Sowell
“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are,
‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.'”
– Ronald Reagan
Romney
Working on it.. Well said. I completely agree. Unfortunately people don’t realize that these funds have to stop at some point. I know people who have been on foot stamps, Medicaid, WIC, have section 8 housing and work part time off the books, who are living so comfortable why would they want a change. They are not thinking about the country as a whole, nor are they thinking about their future. Good luck to all of us in November!
I’m for Romney as probably an overwhelming majority of YWN readers are. Please don’t say neither – our Gedolim have paskened that it is Chiyuv to vote.
Medium Thinker, you do realize that the guy who said that first thing was a British monarchist, and that the democracy he was suggesting couldn’t survive (America) has since outlasted every form of government that then existed, including his own? Perhaps he was less than visionary.
Since I don’t think either one is qualified I’m voting for Gary Johnson, the Liberarian candidate a former Governor of New Mexico.
I don’t like either candidate at all and am planning to vote for Gary Johnson.
The question was who did I want to win. I said neither. How does that mean I’m not voting?
I want Romney to win, not because I think hes so great but I do think he is better than Obama. Obama is so unqualified and after 4 years of his mess we cant take more of it. He will bankrupt this country and we will be like Greece it will be very scary to witness four more years of this out of his element president.
“I don’t like either candidate at all and am planning to vote for Gary Johnson. “
That’s a vote for obama.
romney
Romney.
While holding my nose.
Oy
what i want to know is who you guys voted for last time.
Romney
whomever Hashem wants to win
I can so see Obama turn his back on Israel (was it ever really towards Israel)and Moshiach coming
I can also see Mitt taking on Iran and Moshiach coming that way
BigGolem: That reasoning only will work if the people who are voting for Johnson prefer Romney over Obama. I for one do not.
mosheemes2,
I don’t see how you can attack my perception of Mr. Tyrtle if I did not one word in that post was of my own creation. In addition I don’t see how his political affiliation has any effect on weakening his argument. The logic must be considered. In addition America has been around less than 350 years. Thats is quite slight in the historical perspective. Your understanding of British Monarchy as regards to the Mainland in that historic point is seemingly absent.
250 years is an incredibly long period of time in the context of governments. Specifically in that context, it’s been enough time to witness the end of the British monarchy as political force, as well as a change in every government of every other nation on Earth (generally towards increased democracy). If your point was that in light of that, Tyrtle’s statement was an example of the shortsightedness that’s plagued opponents of popular sovereignty since its creation, then I stand corrected. If you were suggesting that his views are in anyway relevant to the current state of American politics, I think it’s worth noting that he’s been wrong for two and half centuries, and really nothing has changed that would make him seem any more prescient.
I think that the wider public will shy away from Romney. I don’t think the overall population wants religious laws or customs to overrule the secular laws that have been in place for quite some time.
I am pretty sure without being too cynical, that the current admin will have some very fine crisis likea a small military intervention in Syria and then a cease fire to shine the silver of the presidents incumbant advantage.
Slightly off-topic (sorry!), but just finished watching the VP debate…haven’t laughed so hard for a while as a result of hearing Biden say “loose talk” so many times about everything!! He was the commencement speaker for my 2002 law school graduation — I don’t recall him using that expression back then, at least not as often
🙂
mosheemes2 I am pointing out the weakness that Tyrtle pointed out. It is a question that requires logical thought not an irrelevant attack on a man dead for almost 200 years. In addition, in defense of this dead man, your characterization of this dead man as a monarchist is false. He was just more cynical of the utopian democracy.
Did everyone watch the debate??? I never saw such a thing in my life! Joe Biden was laughing the whole time totally making a joke out of it! He was real nasty! He was mocking Romney and Ryan the whole time…! How could such a person be vice president?? I’m really disturbed!
I’m writing myself in, since I would make a great President.
You mentioned someone who claimed that democracies were necessarily permanent in nature. It’s not an ad hominem to point out that he’s been wrong for 250 years which is a about as close to permanent as you get in government terms (and certainly he wasn’t arguing that democracies like all governments are not infinitely self-perpetuating, since no one claims they are). That someone said something couldn’t happen and was wrong about it is an argument against the thing he was arguing. If you’d like to argue that he was wrong then, but somehow now his argument holds water that’s fine, but why would that be?
I also can’t really imagine how you can square the statement you quoted (that democracy cannot be anything but temporary) with him only opposing utopian democracy.
mosheemes2 you seem to simply ignore the many dynasties and monarchies that far outstrip 250 years. You also ignore the ancient democracies of Rome and Greecethat have collapsed. However, that is not my point. My point is that we have to be concerned about the issue that he mentioned. We have to be vigilant that people don’t vote money out of others’ pockets for selfish reasons. There are democracies in Europe that almost collapsed due to this concern. As to your understanding of Tytler, he was a phlosophic historian of sorts, to call him a monarchist is simple ignorance.
Here is a google books link to his book. Read his writing before you label him based on quote attributed to him (This quote is slightly different than the original).
Romney is the only logical choice. Obama cannot be allowed to continue to ruin this nation, not to mention diminish us in the eyes of the rest of the world. I am not sure that Romney is the best choice, either, but he cannot possibly do a worse job than that arrogant, ill-mannered, phoney who unfortunately presently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (when he isn’t out playing golf or going on yet another vacation on our dime).
And I agree, a vote for Gary Johnson is another vote for Obama because it is one less for Romney. Johnson has NO chance of winning. Please reconsider wasting your precious vote on him, it will have zero impact on Johnson, but a great impact on Romney. Unless, you WANT Obama to win. Based SOLELY on his policies towards Israel and the contempt which he has shown its leaders, I would not vote for Obama. But coupled with his destruction of our economy, and the lack of respect he has for our nation or the welfare of its troops (and should we even mention Benghazi?), I cannot understand how any clear-thinking Jew, much less ANY American could vote to give this man a second chance to screw up.
Romney is someone that seems like he would do what he plans. Obama, on the other hand talked and talked about change if you remember and boy did he change this country for the worse! So if you care any about your country stay away from a man who is in the prosecess of really messing it up.
Yes, I choose to ignore systems of government that came into being before the rise of the nation-state when determining what is and is not a long lasting form of government. I think that makes sense. Needless to say Rome was not a democracy and Greece did not exist as anything resembling a nation-state, so neither is even slightly relevant. And neither collapsed because they became welfare states.
My point is that:
1. Tytler’s statement (which after quoting you’re now saying he didn’t make while calling me ignorant, so let’s just stick with his general belief that democracies fail because people are too self-interested) has been around for a really long time.
2. In the actual experience of people living over the last two centuries, democracies have been far more stable than any other form of government. More to the point, it’s become pretty clear that the other forms government that an eighteenth century philosopher/historian might have found acceptable (i.e. monarchy and oligarchy) in fact are far less stable precisely because those forms of governance almost invariably cannot disentangle governance from the self-interest of the governor.
3. So to summarize, we can learn from Tytler that without any evidence to back up the argument, it’s possible to conceptualize democracy as a doomed experiment. The evidence from recent history suggest that it’s not. Ergo, people should stop quoting, or misquoting if you’d like, Tytler as if his statement represents an argument anyone should still be having.
And what European democracy are you referring to that almost collapsed due to this concern? My only guesses are Weimar Germany and present day Hungary, but neither fits the bill.
Rome was quasi democratic. The concept of a nation-state was developed after the American revolution. As an aside, why are we all subjugated to your arbitrary distinction?
1 ok. point? chulent has been around longer(to attack my level of knowledge as having relevance to your ignorance has no logical sense.)
2 ok. point? (Although tytler did speak about the benefits of democracy. He believed though that every lasting democracy will have elements of monarchy-power of the 1% if you will. he believed utopian democracy can’t exist. I didn’t pick sides in his debate with Montesquieu. I am simply pointing out his concern. you obviously did not read tytler. Read what he writes about Democracy and monarchy and repost.)
3. Using your logic, let me make an analogy. If an analyst am concerned about i.e. bad business practices at let us say Goldman Sachs. The analysts then argues that these practices will caues Goldman-Sachs to collapse. It doesn’t. I wish to discuss these practices that the analyst was concerned about Using your logic one must assume that there can not be any problem with Goldman-Sachs and that it is silly to even discuss it. I hope you see the severe flaw in your logic.
I am referring to the present quasi-socialist European countries that almost had complete financial collapses.
Slightly off-topic (sorry!), but just finished watching the VP debate…haven’t laughed so hard for a while as a result of hearing Biden say “loose talk” so many times about everything!! He was the commencement speaker for my 2002 law school graduation — I don’t recall him using that expression back then, at least not as often”
Biden showed a singular lack of restraint, incredible rudeness, arrogance, and obnoxiousness, all traits that I do not personally see as a good thing a heartbeat away from a presidency. Ryan, OTOH showed class, poise, intelligence, preparedness, and leadership. He may be a little young, but he is no dummy. He is also not a hothead, and he did not need to deride the other guy, in order to make his point. How many times did Biden say “my friend” which was a BLATANT insult when referring to Mr. Ryan? That alone, turned me off. His stupid grinning often quite inappropriately, (we should CALM DOWN about Iran????)was a massive dealbreaker for me.
There’s nothing arbitrary about measuring the survival of states only in comparison to states that are remotely comparable. The US has been far more stable than say medieval Venice (or again really almost anything else that could have qualified as a state), but the nature of the states and their purposes are so fundamentally different that there’s no point in comparing the two. Yes, Imperial China was stable for millennia, but nobody thinks that form of governance is superior to that of modern democracy.
That I don’t think you should be calling my claims about Tytler ignorant considering that your earlier posts suggest you knew nothing about him when you made you’re first post does not mean that’s why I think he was a monarchist. I think that because he was one.
Let’s try this again:
1. Democracies are stable (at least one has lasted for centuries), much in the same way you could conclude that the fact that people have been eating chulent for a long time is a good way to prepare meat within the restrictions of shabbos. If someone had said two hundred years ago that chulent was was not a possible way to do that, it would be entirely reasonable to conclude that the fact that it’s been done for 200 years now would make that persons assessment suspect.
2. Any recent evidence would suggest that they’re a lot more stable than many other forms of government that have been experimented with in the last 250 years.
The Goldman Sachs example fails so long as the analyst in question is not making the same argument consistently over a 250 year period to prove that investment banking isn’t a sustainable business model. It’s possible that conditions and/or Goldman’s practiced might make it less sustainable, but it’s really beyond question that investment banking is a theoretically sound business.
Are you under the impression that any country in Europe, again with Hungary as the exception and the factors there are different, has any chance of ceasing to be a democracy any time soon? Democracies weather financial collapses well. It’s one of the reasons they’re so much more stable than other types of government.
Romney believes that the government should prohibit abortion except in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is at stake. Who would get to decide whether the mother’s life is in danger? The government of course. So their policy would take the power to decide away from the mother (who if she’s frum will decide based on what her rabbi says) and gives it to the government. The policy would interfere with the practice of Judaism by giving government, not the rabbis, the power to decide when abortion is appropriate. I’m sympathetic to the pro-lifers and detest abortion myself, but doesn’t Romney’s policy interfere with our freedom of religion? The ultimate decision should be up to the rabbi, not some bureaucrat.
mosheemes2 Did i say in any post that all democracies will fail? (Although as a Jew I believe that all governments may fail before moshiach). I happen not to agree with your utopian view of demcracy. It may be the best form of government presently, but it is far from perfect. I repeatedly stated that his concern that individuals can vote themselves other’s money should be considered. Individuals in a democracy must be vigilant that it does not veer too strongly towards the socialist direction. You are viciously attacking a strawman of your own creation.
Democracies may be fair, but they are not always right.
I don’t think I’ve ever said democracy was a utopia (it would be weird for me to have said that since I don’t think it) or said you’ve said anything you haven’t actually said, but what you’re saying now doesn’t remotely resemble the quote in your initial post, which is really all I’ve been commenting on. I find it annoying when people use that quote, but don’t seem to realize its implications or how wrong it is in the light of history. I have no idea why you feel like you or a strawman has been viscously attacked here.
Needless to say, yes, we can all agree that in any form of government with coercive taxation, and that means all forms of government, the governors need to be vigilant about their power to take other people’s money. For the last time here, I’ll say that democracy’s historic tendency to put checks on that system in ways that monarchies and oligarchies do not, make it a lot better at this than you seem to be willing to admit.
No it will be up to the Doctors. The government will have some sort of guidelines but the Dr will ultimately decide when the mothers life is in danger.
Obama, because he will give more money to Yeshivos & Kollels. I can not understand how anyone who considers themselves Frum would go against the directives of the Gedolim to do otherwise.
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/why-are-pple-voting-for-obama
vet zein git for yisroel mitt Romney
but doesn’t Romney’s policy interfere with our freedom of religion?”
Not if he believes abortion is murder and that life begins at conception. What about the fetus’ right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Suppose the vast majority of people in this country believed we should euthanize the elderly, the terminally ill, or developmentally-challenged? What if they ALL wanted to vote to be allowed to do that, but a presidential candidate arose who (rightly) believed this to be murder and even Nazi-like behavior? Should that candidate (all other things being copacetic) not be voted for because there is one area in which his religious convictions are strongly held and in opposition to the will of the majority?
I would only agree, if the religious beliefs which the candidate espoused, were contrary to Torah teachings. We cannot rely on present-day concepts of morality (whose morality, yours, mine, the Gay Alliance’s?) because what is considered moral or immoral changes with the times. ONLY Torah morality is a constant.
Oomis, I don’t think you understood my comment. Romney’s position IS against the Torah’s teachings. According to the Torah, abortion is permitted in some circumstances, if the life of the woman is at stake. Rabbis decide whether the life of the woman is at stake, according to halacha. If Romney’s position is enacted, Rabbis won’t be able to make that decision — instead, some government bureaucrat who knows nothing about the halacha will decide whether the woman’s life is at stake. So it will keep us from deciding on abortion based on halacha and rabbinic authority.
I agree that abortion is murder, at least unless it’s halachically mandated. That doesn’t mean the government should outlaw it. Restricting it, as pro-life people have managed to do so far, is fine, but outlawing it unless some bureaucrat approves it, gets in the way of the halachic process.
Posted by oomis1105:
Slightly off-topic (sorry!), but just finished watching the VP debate…haven’t laughed so hard for a while as a result of hearing Biden say “loose talk” so many times about everything!! He was the commencement speaker for my 2002 law school graduation. . .
Oomis, are you an attorney?
Oomis was quoting aurora, who originally made the comment you re-quoted. Aurora is the 2002 law grad.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.