We will have to disagree about the impact a GJ win would have on American domestic and foreign policy. Obviously he has Constitutional authority to scale back current military interventions. Could effective end the War on Drugs, pardon MJ possession cases, ask for resignations from the DoJ regarding F&F. Instead of giving empty speeches, he would actually talk about making real cuts to government. I could go on, but I'll skip ahead.
To say GJ would make an ineffective president would require an assumption that GJ could actually win. Once you make that assumption, you have defeated the premise that GJ would be ineffective. The simple miracle that Americans rejected the two party system would be monumental leap forward; something you said you would hope to be true.
The only argument to make is that GJ has no chance of winning, GJ peels votes from Romney, and Obama is worse than Romney. This is all true, however Romney is likely to continue a few too many evils for me to cast a vote for him in good conscience. Again, even in OH, my vote is statistically meaningless. I will cast my meaningless vote in the way that I believe will most benefit the nation. I will compromise on principle to oust a bad politician, but not on this year's potus. This year the lesser evil is just a little too evil for my moral principles.
Tell you what, if Romney starts talking about closing foreign bases, ending wars, bringing troops home, and adopting a non-interventionist foreign policy, then I might vote for him. (edit: Romney is of course completely untrustworthy even if he did say it, but assuming he actually meant it)
Going back to GJ peeling votes from Romney - What if I told you that I knew an Obama supporter that would promise to vote for GJ as long as you did too. Would you accept that agreement, assuming both sides kept their word?
Last edited:
