Here is a word that I had never heard before, yet it covers so much that I have been thinking about many voters who lack the ability.
(rash-ee-OS-uh-nayt, rat-ee-)![[]](http://wordsmith.org/words/images/sound-icon.png)
MEANING:
verb intr.: To reason, especially in a methodical manner.
When I hear people criticize Obama and say they will not vote for him, it is apparent they do not clearly see that the alternatives will be so much worse. If they vote for a Libertarian (or any other choice on the ballot not a major party) they might as well just toss the vote away because there will not be enough votes to elect the candidate. If they vote for Romney we will be back to Norquist and Wall St. ruining the country further. It appalls me that people do not see beyond their prejudices, conning, lies they have been told, nor do they pay attention to the facts about history, economics, statistics and all the information available to them which contradicts what Romney is being taught to say which has no bearing on a presidency by him.
Candidates will promise the moon, such as Romney's promises, have no hope of being realized. When the Bishops of the Catholic church back the nuns who are traveling all over the country to denounce Ryan's budget as totally economically destructive to the middle class and outside Catholic teaching, what in the world can they be thinking? Or are they capable of seeing other than their fears and the bright future being painted by image creators (not job creators).
ratiocinate
PRONUNCIATION:(rash-ee-OS-uh-nayt, rat-ee-)
MEANING:
verb intr.: To reason, especially in a methodical manner.
When I hear people criticize Obama and say they will not vote for him, it is apparent they do not clearly see that the alternatives will be so much worse. If they vote for a Libertarian (or any other choice on the ballot not a major party) they might as well just toss the vote away because there will not be enough votes to elect the candidate. If they vote for Romney we will be back to Norquist and Wall St. ruining the country further. It appalls me that people do not see beyond their prejudices, conning, lies they have been told, nor do they pay attention to the facts about history, economics, statistics and all the information available to them which contradicts what Romney is being taught to say which has no bearing on a presidency by him.
Candidates will promise the moon, such as Romney's promises, have no hope of being realized. When the Bishops of the Catholic church back the nuns who are traveling all over the country to denounce Ryan's budget as totally economically destructive to the middle class and outside Catholic teaching, what in the world can they be thinking? Or are they capable of seeing other than their fears and the bright future being painted by image creators (not job creators).
1 comment:
The "wasted vote" argument has been used against third parties for centuries. But consider my home state of Massachusetts. But in many states, couldn't the same argument be applied to one of the two major parties? Consider my home state of Massachusetts: here, polls show Obama winning by a landslide, so much so that Republicans will do virtually no campaigning in the state. For a Massachusetts voter, isn't a vote for Romney a wasted vote? Similarly, isn't a vote for Obama in Utah a wasted vote, since he will clearly not win this state?
Many people take the "wasted vote" argument just far enough to eliminate alternative they don't like, but they never take the argument to its logical (and undesirable) conclusion.
In this election cycle, we are faced with some very important issues. Federal spending is at unsustainable levels, our military is overextended, and our constitutional liberties have been severely compromised. And what do the two major parties offer as solutions to these problems? Neither Obama nor Romney have proposed serious spending cuts, neither will follow the constitutionally mandated practice of going to war only when congress declares it, and neither wants to restore those rights lost to the war on terror or the war on drugs. In short, both men will take us in the wrong direction, and find it hard to get worked up over voting for whose "wrong direction" is better. I would rather vote my conscience, even if my candidate ends up losing. After all, if I vote for a candidate that wins but whose positions I strongly object to, wouldn't that also be a wasted vote?
Post a Comment