Zealots (or, "Here We Go Again?")
Sep. 24th, 2008 08:31 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
furtechUgh. It's that time again-- friendships destroyed, pointless bickering and teaching pigs to fly. The Presidential election.
I am embarrassed to admit that I let one fanatic take a comment I posted* and steer the discussion away from the point I was making (a factoid with stupid parameters) and lead me into a pointless argument about which candidate had the moral high ground. The is the part some people never seem to learn-- nobody who cares enough to argue about politics is EVER going to be swayed by the equally passionate arguments of another (The folly of trying to teach pigs to fly: it's pointless and annoys the pig).
Honestly? I have a great deal of respect for both (leading) candidates-- IMO either candidate would make a fine president. There are differences, to be sure: one is young and idealistic, the other experienced and more cynical-- but otherwise both are good men.
My dilemma is the usual one of mind and heart: the business owner (and econ major) in me likes the policies of one clearly over the other, but I am excited over the prospect of the other-- whose altruism and charisma and inexperience could be a breath of fresh air after so manyhardened seasoned politicians in that office.
So why am I happy? For the first time in years I find myself in the position of having to decide who to vote for, as opposed to who to vote against. That's neat. And whatever the result, it's a win-win for me. I likely won't decide until I an standing in the booth with the ink stamp in my hand.
There. That's my political burp for this election, except to say (WRT California propositions): "Kill them all...let God sort them out Vote no on EVERYTHING!"
*I totally apologize to Dia for bringing such negativity to her journal-- mea culpa, mea culpa!
I am embarrassed to admit that I let one fanatic take a comment I posted* and steer the discussion away from the point I was making (a factoid with stupid parameters) and lead me into a pointless argument about which candidate had the moral high ground. The is the part some people never seem to learn-- nobody who cares enough to argue about politics is EVER going to be swayed by the equally passionate arguments of another (The folly of trying to teach pigs to fly: it's pointless and annoys the pig).
Honestly? I have a great deal of respect for both (leading) candidates-- IMO either candidate would make a fine president. There are differences, to be sure: one is young and idealistic, the other experienced and more cynical-- but otherwise both are good men.
My dilemma is the usual one of mind and heart: the business owner (and econ major) in me likes the policies of one clearly over the other, but I am excited over the prospect of the other-- whose altruism and charisma and inexperience could be a breath of fresh air after so many
So why am I happy? For the first time in years I find myself in the position of having to decide who to vote for, as opposed to who to vote against. That's neat. And whatever the result, it's a win-win for me. I likely won't decide until I an standing in the booth with the ink stamp in my hand.
There. That's my political burp for this election, except to say (WRT California propositions): "
*I totally apologize to Dia for bringing such negativity to her journal-- mea culpa, mea culpa!
