And again indeed!

Indeed again!

Indeed!

I couldn't disagree more. EWV is advocating for voting for the 'least of the worst' and accepting only the options given by others. He goes further and defines morality as only pertaining to the reality of the moment (a reality set for you by others), making them conditional, situational, and relative. Morality is defined from your principles or its not moral, its then political.

Then he describes my political choices as 'necessarily' 'very constrained.' Why? And who decides that its necessary? That's nonsense.

I understand where you are coming from. and I also understand that we are so far gone and that this isn't about little political tweaks here and there

Not voting says you have more integrity than the Demreps and the system. It is choosing not to give your sanction to a system that deifies statism and minimizes liberty.

you are providing more context to the discussion. I have not seen those posts. Personally, I have gone around and around with myself on this. I remain a Republican so I can vote in the primary. But the take one for the team in the general I am done with. I do support the argument that voting 3rd party sends a voting message rather than loses it for our side kind of thinking. But I think it's important to vote. and you have limited choices. staying home doesn't say anything.

EWV consistently promotes lesser of two evils voting, and this post is no exception. Understanding the issues and candidates is essential, of course, but that is undermined by his conclusion in favor of wasting your vote on the lesser of two evils. It is a surrender to a rigged system. Action must be outside what the party offers or the result is more dictatorship and less liberty. Why does ANYONE listen to this sort of failed reasoning when there is a century of evidence that it produces more and more intrusive government, and less and less liberty? If the founders had constrained choices to "reality" North America might still be an English colony.

(I often agree with what EWV writes, the earlier post on 'intellectual battle' a "best of" today being one example, but I can't support this surrender to the system.)

so obviously you disagree, would you care to elaborate so I can know your thinking on this?

if you are going to choose to act then understanding what choices you have and that they are constrained is based in reality. what exactly do you disagree with, the assumption that one must act? (hindsight is 50/50 as my daughter says)

FTFY

kh - Please, for those, like me, who may slow on the uptake,
when quoting I suggest you use quote marks or a message to say you are quoting.
For a moment I thought your account had been hacked!

Politics king george would be proud to call his own.

I could not disagree more. Assuming that the only rational choice is to vote for one of the DemRep statists is absolute rubbish. Swish, pop, Strike Three, you are out!