Here is an article from Daniel McCarthy at The American Conservative on how a traditionalist should vote. He covers the third party alternatives.
I’ve said on Facebook that I’m tempted to cut out the middleman this November and write in a vote for Goldman Sachs. But if you’re a traditionalist conservative and you want to accept one of the offerings officially on your ballot, which do you choose?
For partisans, this is a no-brainer. For conservatives in the vein of, say, Russell Kirk, it’s anything but. Faced with the non-choice between Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Thomas Dewey in 1944, Kirk said no to empire and voted for Norman Thomas, the Socialist Party candidate. There was no Fox News to tell him a conservative couldn’t do that.
LOL
Catching up on old stories after some time away from the computer and its probably too late to ask, but I’m curious as to how exactly does my choice for President affect the color of my grandchildren?
I don’t really have a color preference per se, but I’m pretty pale and the only woman I seriously considered reproducing with was a ginger, so have to say the offspring would be translucent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)
…
While biologists sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race is often used[3] in a naive[4] or simplistic way, i.e. that among humans, race has no taxonomic significance: all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens.[5][6] Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies [7] that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete,[8] and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.[4][9]
….
It is demonstrated that race has no biological or genetic basis: gross morphological features which traditionally has been defined as races (e.g. skin color) are determined by non-significant and superficial genetic alleles with no link to any characteristics, such as intelligence, talent, athletic ability, etc. Race has been socially and legally constructed despite the lack of any scientific evidence for dividing humanity into racial baskets with any generalized genetic meaning.[11][12][13][14]
…..
Scholars continue to debate the degrees to which racial categories are biologically warranted and socially constructed, as well as the extent to which the realities of race must be acknowledged in order for society to comprehend and address racism adequately.[24] Accordingly, the racial paradigms employed in different disciplines vary in their emphasis on biological reduction as contrasted with societal construction.
………
Groups of humans have probably always identified themselves as distinct from other groups, but such differences have not always been understood to be natural, immutable and global. These features are the distinguishing features of how the concept of race is used today.[25]
The word “race” was originally used to refer to any nations or ethnic groups. Marco Polo in his 13th-century travels, for example, describes the Persian race[26]—the current concept of “race” dates back only to the 17th century.[27]
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_definitions_of_race
@paulie #16, you just demonstrated precisely the logical fallacy of the heap.
I’ll have more later when I have time.
@TK, RC
Yes, yes and yes.
tk, yes, unlikely. I do, however, find discussions of “race” to be helpful teachable moments. It helps to smoke out the overt haters…that’s easy. But then it also helps to unearth more subtle forms of hate that is manipulated in the political process.
more to rp….
“Facts” are very often plastic. The unemployment rates is 7.8%, reportedly. It’s a “fact.” Whether that “fact” is “truth” is an entirely different matter, yes?
BHO might check off “African American,” just as Elizabeth Warren may’ve checked off “Native American.” “Facts” are funny, often misleading, things.
Paul and Robert are both right.
“Race” is a set of subjective constructs (per Paulie).
Subjective constructs are not necessarily not “real” (per Robert).
I suspect that Paulie and Robert agree that none of the quibbling over “race” is likely to produce anything resembling a rational or worthwhile political ideology, though.
“what we can’t know is whether the curtains match the carpet, ”
When it comes to redheaded women, I try to check as often as possible.
rp, “race” is “real” if you want it to be. Since there can be and is cross-“race” breeding, it seems to me to be an arbitrary concept. We might notice shades of skin color and perhaps facial features that seem to make a category. But then we see Tiger Woods and Barack Obama. What “race” are they?
There might be a “race” of red-heads, but what we can’t know is whether the curtains match the carpet, or whether they’ve been altered.
No, I’ve made a study of it. There is more genetic variation within the so-called races than between them, and no clear barrier that delineates races that can be determined genetically. There have been different racial taxonomies in use over the years, identifying a different number of supposed races. Even today, the use is not fixed; for example, although the US Census Bureau considers Middle Easterners to be “white,” many Americans don’t. The white race itself is deemed “caucasian,” yet in Russia many people don’t consider actual Caucasians – that is, people from the Caucasus mountains area – to be white. Many white racists don’t consider ethnic Jews to be white. Ethiopians, who are considered black by most other people, consider themselves to be white and what other people call white people to be “pink.” And so on.
“race is a pseudoscientific concept; there are no human subspecies”
Whether we call them subspecies or not, race is a real biological entity. I highly doubt that an intelligent guy like yourself really believes such Boasian flat earth nonsense. The facts don’t fit your ideology so you go with the ideology which is a habit of libertarians.
If I am not infertile, it’s mathematically virtually certain that I have grandchildren of every so-called race (race is a pseudoscientific concept; there are no human subspecies). Unfortunately, I don’t know who they are or with 100% certainty that they exist.
My only nephew, who turns one this month, is considered black because his father is considered black, although some people may say he is “blewish”.
I want them all to grow up in a world where their supposed race makes no difference whatsoever and where people like the Wizard Merlin Miller are even more of a joke than they already are.
“Merlin Miller?” Had to look him up.
He’s on the ballot in three states. Big deal.
He doesn’t like interracial marriage. His concern over skin color makes him to be an idiot.
His American Third Position Party is a bunch of racist white suremacists.
Support this guy? Not even if my name was Jacques Strappe!
“Do you want your grandchildren to live in a third world slum? Do you want them to be White?”
I don’t have a color preference.
If I could vote in your country the obvious choice would be Merlin Miller, of course. Do you want your grandchildren to live in a third world slum? Do you want them to be White?
Ah, thanks Root’s Teeth.
No, in California you don’t have to agree to be a write-in candidate. You can be certified as an official write-in candidate against your will.
Ron Paul was a write-in candidate in California in 2008, though Paul himself endorsed Chuck Baldwin.
Ironically, Paul got 17,006 votes in California, whereas Baldwin got something between 3,000 and 4,000 (I forget the actual number).
Paul supporters vote for Paul, whether he wants them to or not.
To be an official write-in candidate in CA did Paul have to agree to this, sign a statement of candidacy> If so, what’s up with that? Why would he run as a Republican, raise a bunch of money, not get the Republican nomination, then refuse to endorse Romney and then not run as an independent or Libertarian? And then agree to be an official write-in? What’s he up to? Is he trying to undermine Johnson’s vote total?
If true, it smells suspicious to me.
It’s my understanding that both Goode and Ron Paul will be write-in candidates in California.
Indeed, according to the DailyPaul.com, Paul is already set in California.
It is my understanding that Goode will be an official write-in candidate in CA so he will get my vote. My other choice would be to simply skip the presidential vote even though on some issues I agree with Johnson.
I think we have an opportunity to break the two party stranglehold if Gary Johnson receives 5% of the popular vote.
I am honestly torn between Gary and Virgil.
I am not sure if I should go into why I don’t support Tom Hoefling because it will get a lot of trolls involved. However based on the fact that he did not attend the CA AIP but called in, he has not campaigned even in states that he is on the ballot, he does not have an active campaign, he does not accept any donations, etc.; I have come to the conclusion that his objective is not to advance the pro-life cause or the traditionalist cause but rather to hinder the Constitution Party. Since I am not a member of the CP and have no first-hand knowledge of what caused all of the problems, I am not going into whether or not his complaint is legit. If Tom Hoefling is trying to advance the pro-life cause then he needs to get off his bottom and start campaigning.
Timothy, if you’re a traditional conservative, shouldn’t the life issue be important to you? GJ is pro-choice. Of course the only real pro-life candidate is Tom Hoefling in California, and I understand not wanting to vote for him.
The article sounds wishy washy. As a traditional conservative living in California I am going to vote for Gary Johnson. Now that Virgil Goode is not on the ballot in California it is time for Constitutionalists, traditionalists, libertarians, and Tea Party Republicans to unite around Gary Johnson. California is not a swing state. People living in non-swing states have no reason to vote for the lesser of two evils. Gary Johnson has the best record of any governor in cutting government, taxes, and producing a surplus.