I am looking for advice on what I should do in the next few weeks. You can change your party affiliation in Pennsylvania still and our primary is in late April.
Everybody is saying that PA will be THE state choosing between Obama and Clinton. That's a huge responsibility. I don't trust Obama but he does SAY he will end the war. I want the war to end more than anything else - even more than all of the other things that Ron Paul stands for.
I know some here still think Ron Paul can become president - and I don't want to focus on that in this thread. Let's agree to disagree. I don't think the movement is over but I think the presidential campaign is.
With that said - I would throw up if Clinton becomes president. I know she is pure evil. Obama might be pure evil too. For example I know he:
- voted to reauthorize the patriot act
- won't take nuking Iran off the table
- said stuff about keeping the troops in Iraq for a few more years
- is a member of CFR
- is a tool of one of the major parties
(am I answering my own question here?)
but there is a part of me that wonders - even though he will tax and spend us into the ground (just like McCain and Clinton I might add) he has good intentions. Clearly he is the least of the three evils. And I even get the feeling Ron Paul likes him (though he rightly seems to believe he is misguided)
Voting for Ron Paul in PA would only help get him delegates at the convention. It won't make him president. But my vote COULD make Obama president. So please tell me - how best can I use my vote in this situation? I want to do what is best for my country and I'm not afraid to use the system against the system (that is change parties at the last possible moment to vote one for a candidate I don't like in order to prevent another candidate I dislike even more from winning.)
Honestly, the moral and correct thing to do is cast your vote for the person you want to be President. Period. End of story.
But, since you're being pragmatic about it, I'll offer my two cents.
Generally speaking, Obama is the most dangerous of the three candidates you mentioned because, just like you, lots of people feel that he "has good intentions." Not only could this not be further from the truth, it will result in more of his "vision of change" being implemented because more people will give him the benefit of the doubt. Clinton is much safer for liberty than Obama because so many people dislike her -- mark my words, Congress will do much less to derail Obama's socialist, anti-liberty agenda than Clinton's.
Regarding the war, Congress has the power to stop it. They simply need to cut off funding. As Ron Paul himself has pointed out, the soldiers will not suffer from this because there is always money in the pipeline to execute a safe, orderly withdrawal. Our Congress, as usual, is passing the political buck just like they did when they signed the "Authorization to use Force..." If you want the war to stop, vote for members of Congress who have the courage to stop funding it.
To give you a specific example of why Obama does not have "good intentions," just look at his plan for "Universal Voluntary Public Service." I'm not joking, he actually calls it that. It's on his website, under "Issues - Service." How can something that is "voluntary" also be "universal" you might ask? Simple - just look at the specifics. His recommendation includes something called The American Opportunity Tax Credit which gives college students a yearly $4,000 fully refundable tax credit for doing 100 hours of service, and this is meant to be used to pay for college tuition. MANY students will do this if it's available because it amounts to $40 per hour in wages, since it's fully-refundable and not a simple tax deduction. AND, just like all other tax credits including the Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits, this credit will only increase tuition prices and thus increase America's dependence on getting federal funds to help lessen the burden of paying for college (this conclusion was also reached by economists working for the Clinton administration in the 90s, a major reason they didn't pursue a tax credit scheme). It's a simple power play for the government to get more control over education, just like they did with the No Child Left Behind nonsense -- "give" schools and students more money, then threaten to take it away if they don't do what the government demands. In the case of NCLB, the government demands a dizzying array of standardized tests that do nothing to enhance education, and only result in more students being trained to sit up, fetch, and play dead when they're told, metaphorically speaking of course. In the case of the American Opportunity Tax credit, it's simply the government forcing students to do public service under threat of taking away $4,000 per year which they'll need to pay for college once tuition rises again as a direct result of so many people using the tax credit.
If you look closely, most of Obama's "Universal" (aka Socialist) plans are like this -- give money away, which artificially distorts the market and increases prices, then threaten to take the money away, which you now need more than you did before his programs, if you don't do what he demands.
Hope this sheds some light on the subject for you. Vote your conscience.
Edit: Ron Paul does not like Obama. I've certainly never seen anything to substantiate this, and all of Ron Paul's positions are the antithesis of Obama's.
It's only 1 out of 20 people (republican voters though... so not gen pop), but the way I see it that is a huge victory in itself. Hell, if 1 in 20 people truly understood economic history we wouldn't see this huge surge towards socialism that we're currently witnessing. So a protest vote, IMHO, is a tad bit better than no vote at all.
