If Ron Paul Won the GOP Nod, Would You Vote For Him in November?

[John81]

Do you really not know what the phrase "the lesser of two evils" means, and how it applies to this discussion? I'd type out an explanation, but I think you already know...

With all I've ever used the term with in the real world, "evil" candidates means those who are prone to wickedness, or evil, of some kind.

"Evil" candidates are along the lines of those I mentioned above.

[JerryNumbers]

I would vote for Mickey Mouse over Obama. So yes, I would vote for Ron Paul.

I thought we had Mickey Mouse for president for the last 3 years!

The Mickey Mouse President, or Mickey Mouse for President?

[Annie]

With all I've ever used the term with in the real world, "evil" candidates means those who are prone to wickedness, or evil, of some kind.

"Evil" candidates are along the lines of those I mentioned above.

No, having to decide between the "lesser of two evils" means that you really don't like any of your options, but have to choose one of them. Like, your budget has limited you to a choice between a house near the railroad tracks and a house 30 minutes away from where you work. You don't really like either choice, but you weigh the options and figure out which "evil" you'd rather live with: forking out a lot more gas money or putting up with your windows rattling as the midnight express zooms by.

That's what the phrase means.

Applied to this discussion, the phrase means that you really don't like either option for president, but you decide which one you'd rather put up with. Edited March 9, 2012 by Annie

[John81]

No, having to decide between the "lesser of two evils" means that you really don't like any of your options, but have to choose one of them. Like, your budget has limited you to a choice between a house near the railroad tracks and a house 30 minutes away from where you work. You don't really like either choice, but you weigh the options and figure out which "evil" you'd rather live with: forking out a lot more gas money or putting up with your windows rattling as the midnight express zooms by.

That's what the phrase means.

Applied to this discussion, the phrase means that you really don't like either option for president, but you decide which one you'd rather put up with.

Actually, it's obvious not everyone means the same thing by this phrase.

There may be good, acceptable and bad choices in an election. For myself, and all those I've ever talked with in the real world, the evil choice would be the bad choice.

The good choice, well, that would be the one that's actually good.

The acceptable choice would be the one who isn't as good as we need, but would still do good in the overall steering of things the right direction.

When I was born JFK was president. If we look at the time of JFK to today, under BHO, we can see clearly that America has been heading towards the cliff of destruction at ever increasing speed regardless of whether there was a Dem or Repub in the White House. Under Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama, America has continued down the same road of destruction.

Why does anyone really think electing more of the same, whether Mitt, Newt, Rick or Obama will make any significant difference?

[Pastor Matt]

I see that the "Lesser of Two Evils" takes on a new meaning this year. :)

[Annie]

Actually, it's obvious not everyone means the same thing by this phrase.

That's probably true, but the meaning of this idiom is universally agreed upon among educated and well-read people.

http://dictionary.re...er+of+two+evils : Idioms & Phrases lesser of two evils The somewhat less unpleasant of two poor choices. For example, I'd rather stay home and miss the picnic altogether than run into those nasty people; it's the lesser of two evils . This expression was already a proverb in ancient Greek and appeared in English by the late 1300s. Chaucer used it in Troilus and Cressida .

http://en.wikipedia....evils_principle : The lesser evil or lesser of two evils principle is the idea in politics and political science that of two bad choices, one isn't as bad as the other, and should be chosen over the one that is a greater threat.

http://idioms.thefre...er+of+two+evils : lesser of two evils the less bad thing of a pair of bad things. I didn't like either politician, so I voted for the lesser of two evils. Given the options of going out with someone I don't like and staying home and watching a boring television program, I chose the lesser of the two evils and watched television.

There may be good, acceptable and bad choices in an election. For myself, and all those I've ever talked with in the real world, the evil choice would be the bad choice.

Sure, there might be shades of gray in an election. There might be a “bad through and through” candidate. There might be a “sorta good” candidate. There might even be a “great” candidate who fulfills all of my expectations for what a President should be, whom I can unreservedly support, and who even inspires me to knock on doors and hold signs at his campaign speeches. But there’s no one like that in this election cycle…There’s no one I’m excited about. I don’t “like,” let alone “love” any of the Republican candidates. So, I’m forced to choose between the lesser of two evils when it comes to my vote, both in the primary and in the general election.

The good choice, well, that would be the one that's actually good.

None of the choices look “good” to me.

The acceptable choice would be the one who isn't as good as we need, but would still do good in the overall steering of things the right direction.

I would say that any of the Repubs would be “acceptable” over Obama. I don’t see that any of them would “do good [sic] in the overall steering of things in the right direction,” not completely, anyway. To say otherwise is to think pretty simplistically.

When I was born JFK was president. If we look at the time of JFK to today, under BHO, we can see clearly that America has been heading towards the cliff of destruction at ever increasing speed regardless of whether there was a Dem or Repub in the White House. Under Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama, America has continued down the same road of destruction.

100% agreed there…and it started waaaay before Kennedy. America’s headlong rush toward destruction has less to do with her government than it does with her decadence and utter rejection of her Creator.

Why does anyone really think electing more of the same, whether Mitt, Newt, Rick or Obama will make any significant difference?

Paul will not make any significant difference, either, for the reasons I’ve mentioned. And I wouldn’t like any of the significant differences he’s promising to make. He’s last on my “Repub like” list. That said, he'd be better than Obama...the lesser of the two evils. Edited March 9, 2012 by Annie

[John81]

Regardless of what dictionaries say, we all know that people in different areas have different meanings for different words, terms and phrases. That's nothing new.

Considering the fact Mitt, Newt and Rick's plans all indicate they will continue America in the same direction as it's going now, I'm not sure how one defines the idea of any of them as president being "better".

[Annie]

Regardless of what dictionaries say, we all know that people in different areas have different meanings for different words, terms and phrases. That's nothing new.

LOL...How convenient. Sounds kinda "Clintonian" to me... So, really, idioms and words have no meaning at all? Or we can just define words and use idioms any way we want to? I've always thought that when there's a discrepancy between the way I understand a word/idiom and the way every dictionary defines it, the lack of understanding is mine, and I need to educate myself more thoroughly, and bring my understanding in line with the true meaning of that word/idiom. It's impossible to have any sort of reasonable discussion with someone who refuses to recognize the accepted and standardized meaning of such terms. So, don't be stubborn, John.

Considering the fact Mitt, Newt and Rick's plans all indicate they will continue America in the same direction as it's going now, I'm not sure how one defines the idea of any of them as president being "better".

This is your spin, John. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I'm not buyin' it. Edited March 9, 2012 by Annie

[John81]

LOL...How convenient. Sounds kinda "Clintonian" to me... So, really, idioms and words have no meaning at all? Or we can just define words and idioms the way we want to? I've always thought that when there's a discrepancy between the way I understand a word/idiom and the way every dictionary defines it, the lack of understanding is mine, and I need to educate myself more thoroughly, and bring my understanding in line with the true meaning of that word/idiom. It's impossible to have any sort of reasonable discussion with someone who refuses to recognize the accepted and standardized meaning of such terms. So, don't be stubborn, John.


This is your spin, John. I don't agree with it.

Actually, it's a fact. Study the language even just here in this country and there are vastly different interpretations of what some words, terms and phrases mean. If we expand beyond America, these differences grow greatly.

No, that's not my spin, it's the truth. Independent studies have been conducted on each candidates plans and every candidates plans, expcept for Pauls, will see the government grow, the budget increased and the deficit grow. Those are facts. The spin is what comes from the candidates trying to claim otherwise.

[Annie]

Actually, it's a fact. Study the language even just here in this country and there are vastly different interpretations of what some words, terms and phrases mean. If we expand beyond America, these differences grow greatly.

Could you give an example of another idiom which is interpreted "vastly differently" among Americans without that fact being noted in the dictionary? (Here's a link to get you started: http://www.learnenglishfeelgood.com/americanidioms/ ) I understand differences in regional dialects, but we're talking a standardized definition here. (And there's no indication in any dictionary that its meaning varies among regions.) Those who use this idiom to mean something different than it really means are simply misinformed (or perhaps uneducated). The "evil" in this idiom has nothing to do with personal character; that's just the fact of the matter. If you refuse to accept the standardized meaning of this term, then I'm not sure we can have any sort of reasonable discussion about it.

I'm not talking about the "internationally accepted" definition (or, as you say, "expanding beyond America") ; this is an American idiom (although, since it is sourced in ancient Greek, I wouldn't be surprised if other languages have a similar idiom).

Why are you digging yourself deeper into this hole? Seems a bit silly, really. Words have meaning. The fact that someone invents his own meaning/interpretation of a particular term does not change the true meaning of the term. One of the purposes of dictionaries is to list the correct meaning of words and idioms. (I feel like I'm talking to my second grader here. )

No, that's not my spin, it's the truth. Independent studies have been conducted on each candidates plans and every candidates plans, expcept for Pauls, will see the government grow, the budget increased and the deficit grow. Those are facts. The spin is what comes from the candidates trying to claim otherwise.

And I suppose these "independent studies" are being heavily used by Ron Paul's campaign to promote his agenda? I'm not drinkin' the Kool-aid. (And I'm not drinking any of the other candidates' Kool-aid, either. I'm fully aware that none of them are ideal.) I like Ron Paul's agenda the least of all of the Repub candidates. Edited March 9, 2012 by Annie

[Brother Rick]

Annie, their idea of fixing our debt problem is by not spending as much as the Democrats, but still spending more money that we don't have. There is such a huge difference between Ron Paul's plan and the plan of the other three. Please remove your debating glassed and just listen.

The Federal Government spent 3.6 trillion dollars last year, but only took in 2.3 trillion. People act like this is not a big deal, but this is how countries like ours wind up like countries like Greece. Every citizen in this country is $50,000 in debt because of our government and they don't even know it. The taxpayers are $136,000 in debt! Ron Paul is the only man standing that has taken this seriously enough to actually suggest the drastic changes that are needed.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

1. $929 billion was spend last year on military alone. There are 900 military installations all over the world and most of them are doing nothing but taking money from this country and pumping it into the country that has the military base. Ron Paul would make changes in this area that the other three have ignored. The other three will fix this problem by finding new people to go to war with!

2. There are several departments of the Federal government that can and should be run solely on a local and state level (and they would be run better!). One of the most glaring examples of this is the department of education. Ron Paul would do what he could to shut it down on a federal level, along with other departments that are huge money pits. No one has the courage to address this but Paul. All the rest will leave things as they are in this area.

3. Our central banking system, the Federal Reserve, is one of the most damaging institutions in this nation, if not the most. The government wants to spend money, so they ask the Fed to generate it. We're off the gold standard, so people say that our money is backed up by nothing. It's much worse than that; it's backed up by less than nothing: debt. For every dollar generated we owe the Federal Reserve that dollar back along with an interest rate attached to it. The Fed is a bank, and it has never been audited, and it has us by the throat because most of our federal income tax goes to paying this interest. Every increase in government spending means more fake money made with more interest charged by the Fed.

The Federal Reserve of 1913 was the third and final attempt to create a central banking system in America like there was in England when the Colonists left. This was done in a crisis, hasty moment to try and fix future exonomic problems (you can see how well it worked!). The first two central banking attempts in America failed. Andrew Jackson, the only president who ever paid off all our debt, was vehemently against a central banking system and shut down the second attempt. Ron Paul made this an issue in 2008, he wants to audit and then end the Fed.


I did not vote for Ron Paul because I thought he would win Idaho. This is Mormon country, and everyone knew that Mitt had it in the bag from day one. I voted for Ron Paul in the primary because I wanted my vote to send a message that there are a lot of people out there that care about the economy and these above issues. Because of Paul’s growing popularity, many candidates are starting to talk about point number three. Without Paul, that point would certainly continue to be ignored. Ron Paul came 30 votes shy of taking second place in Idaho. It was 18.2% to 18.1% - that is sending a clear message.

Hopefully we’re wrong and whoever gets it in November will turn things around financially for our country. I have four little kids, and I hate debt. It breaks my heart that a bunch of elitists in a foreign land (in this case Washington D.C.) who don’t know anything about my family values or where I live have taken it upon themselves to hand my children a bill for $136,000 just for being born.

Edited March 9, 2012 by Rick Schworer

[HappyChristian]

But, Rick - NO POTUS can do anything about it, except recommend to Congress, and sign what Congress comes up with. A POTUS can recommend any budget he wants, but it isn't ultimately up to him...unless his last name is Obama. He seems to believe, and is getting away with, that he doesn't have to follow the Constitution if he doesn't want to.

Ron Paul can do nothing he has stated he will do (other than bring the troops home) just by becoming POTUS and decreeing it. Things MUST go through Congress. Granted, he is the best on economic issues (Santorum is historically a big spender, Mitt's history is known by his stint in MA, Gingrich actually helped balance the budget under Clinton), but there are other issues that I cannot agree with. And his ties with Soros bother me greatly...that said, I agree with Annie. If he's the choice, he will get our vote. But I think it's a moot point, because he won't get the nomination.
~~~~
And idioms are idioms. "Lesser of two evils" means the same thing all over America. Just because someone wants to parse something to death that doesn't need to be parsed at all doesn't mean the meaning changes...

[Annie]

Annie, their idea of fixing our debt problem is by not spending as much as the Democrats, but still spending more money that we don't have. There is such a huge difference between Ron Paul's plan and the plan of the other three. Please remove your debating glassed and just listen.

Rick, I'm open to listening, and I appreciate your taking the time to say something other than the "rhetoric" I'm so used to hearing from RP fans.

The Federal Government spent 3.6 trillion dollars last year, but only took in 2.3 trillion. People act like this is not a big deal, but this is how countries like ours wind up like countries like Greece. Every citizen in this country is $50,000 in debt because of our government and they don't even know it. The taxpayers are $136,000 in debt! Ron Paul is the only man standing that has taken this seriously enough to actually suggest the drastic changes that are needed.

I appreciate Paul's general philosophy on this, but I don't think he would be able to solve any of our problems. He's not an effective leader. He comes across as angry and whiny, not positive. Like it or not, this characteristic of his (among others) would render him helpless in Washington (if he ever even made it that far).

1. $929 billion was spend last year on military alone. There are 900 military installations all over the world and most of them are doing nothing but taking money from this country and pumping it into the country that has the military base. Ron Paul would make changes in this area that the other three have ignored. The other three will fix this problem by finding new people to go to war with!

I was with you until your rhetoric in the last sentence. I don't know any candidate who is eager to go to war with anyone, especially now. Defend our country? Sure. I don't agree with Paul's philosophy when it comes to this. I think the U.S. needs a strong military presence around the world, and I'm not in favor of cutting finances in that area. I would rather taxes be raised significantly than cut the military budget.

2. There are several departments of the Federal government that can and should be run solely on a local and state level (and they would be run better!). One of the most glaring examples of this is the department of education. Ron Paul would do what he could to shut it down on a federal level, along with other departments that are huge money pits. No one has the courage to address this but Paul. All the rest will leave things as they are in this area.

This may or may not be true across the board. I think I'd generally agree that local governments are more effective and efficient. Education will be a mess no matter who is in charge of it. And no President can overhaul that reeking mess; it has already gone beyond the point of no return, IMO.

3. Our central banking system, the Federal Reserve, is one of the most damaging institutions in this nation, if not the most. The government wants to spend money, so they ask the Fed to generate it. We're off the gold standard, so people say that our money is backed up by nothing. It's much worse than that; it's backed up by less than nothing: debt. For every dollar generated we owe the Federal Reserve that dollar back along with an interest rate attached to it. The Fed is a bank, and it has never been audited, and it has us by the throat. Every increase in government spending means more fake money made with more interest charged by the Fed.

The Federal Reserve of 1913 was the third and final attempt to create a central banking system in America like there was in England when the Colonists left. This was done in a crisis, hasty moment to try and fix future exonomic problems (you can see how well it worked!). The first two central banking attempts in America failed. Andrew Jackson, the only president who ever paid off all our debt, was vehemently against a central banking system and shut down the second attempt. Ron Paul made this an issue in 2008, he wants to audit and then end the Fed.

Totally agree the Fed is out of control. From what I've heard, Ron Paul isn't the only candidate who thinks this way. Things today are a lot more complicated than in Jackson's day. We're in a mess, and auditing and ending the Fed isn't going to solve the problem. No one person can do it.

I did not vote for Ron Paul because I thought he would win Idaho. This is Mormon country, and everyone knew that Mitt had it in the bag from day one. I voted for Ron Paul in the primary because I wanted my vote to send a message that there are a lot of people out there that care about the economy and these above issues. Because of Paul’s growing popularity, many candidates are starting to talk about point number three. Without Paul, that point would certainly continue to be ignored. Ron Paul came 30 votes shy of taking second place in Idaho. It was 18.2% to 18.1% - that is sending a clear message.

I just hate that the desire to send "the clear message" has the effect of draining votes from conservative candidates who could actually do something in Washington.

Hopefully we’re wrong and whoever gets it in November will turn things around financially for our country. I have four little kids, and I hate debt. It breaks my heart that a bunch of elitists in a foreign land (in this case Washington D.C.) who don’t know anything about my family values or where I live have taken it upon themselves to hand my children a bill for $136,000 just for being born.

Nope, I'm not holding out hope that anyone's going to turn things around. Call me a pessimist, but I see impending collapse in our future no matter who wins the presidency. America doesn't deserve anything else.

[Brother Rick]

It looks like we agree on most things here, Annie - but how is voting for Paul in the primary to send a message about the above issues, and then voting for the Republican candidate in November (regardless of who he is) harmful?

As far as the military, I'm for defense spending - but I'm not for wasting money. Why do we have bases throughout Europe? We have 900 military installations guarding other people's borders, but ours are wide open. The establishment Republicans have been talking about guarding our borders for over a decade but have done nothing, even when they owned everything and they could have.

[John81]

Could you give an example of another idiom which is interpreted "vastly differently" among Americans without that fact being noted in the dictionary? (Here's a link to get you started: http://www.learnengl...americanidioms/ ) I understand differences in regional dialects, but we're talking a standardized definition here. (And there's no indication in any dictionary that its meaning varies among regions.) Those who use this idiom to mean something different than it really means are simply misinformed (or perhaps uneducated). The "evil" in this idiom has nothing to do with personal character; that's just the fact of the matter. If you refuse to accept the standardized meaning of this term, then I'm not sure we can have any sort of reasonable discussion about it.

I'm not talking about the "internationally accepted" definition (or, as you say, "expanding beyond America") ; this is an American idiom (although, since it is sourced in ancient Greek, I wouldn't be surprised if other languages have a similar idiom).

Why are you digging yourself deeper into this hole? Seems a bit silly, really. Words have meaning. The fact that someone invents his own meaning/interpretation of a particular term does not change the true meaning of the term. One of the purposes of dictionaries is to list the correct meaning of words and idioms. (I feel like I'm talking to my second grader here. )


And I suppose these "independent studies" are being heavily used by Ron Paul's campaign to promote his agenda? I'm not drinkin' the Kool-aid. (And I'm not drinking any of the other candidates' Kool-aid, either. I'm fully aware that none of them are ideal.) I like Ron Paul's agenda the least of all of the Repub candidates.

Actually, so far I've not noticed the Paul campaign reference them. "Independent studies" means just that, they are independent, not favoring anyone, not looking to harm anyone.

These studies were cited on national news and conservatives and liberals alike acknowledge the independent nature.

In any event, you are free to ignore facts and history if you wish.

I'm not on anybodies roster, I'm just going to look at the facts and accept them regardless of who they may potentially help, harm or neither.

One of the facts being, no matter who is the next president, America will continue headlong towards the cliff of destruction. What's more, it's our own fault.