View Full Version : Voting Your Conscience?
This thread is a spin off from the other (1) and I thought a stand alone topic.
Do you vote you Conscience or do you vote party line? It seems most agree the current two party system aint working so well.
I wont say which election, but I have voted third party before knowing full well they wouldn't win, but I voted my conscience and felt my two choices of the front runners, 'lesser of two evils' couldn't be found for me.
I don't recall ever seeing a worse case of that in my life time with what will be our current choices.
The catch 22 of course is, people feel a third party candidate can't win, so they don't vote for them, which makes sure they can't win, and so forth.
Many people simply don't vote when they don't like their choices between the two major candidates, and don't realize the voting process is the essential part in the larger picture.
Although a third party candidate has no chances of winning currently, they can alter election outcomes. Did the votes that went to a third party candidate not cost Gore the election? I could be wrong there, so correct as needed.
Point being, they may not win, but they can effect the outcome, if 5% goes to a third party candidate (or is split between various parties/candidates) and the election lost by single digits in a very close election.
Obviously, that can bee seen as a + or a - depending on how it impacts your candidate if you want one in particular to win. Me, I view it as a message being sent that a growing % of people are not happy with their choices at all from the two party system.
I'm not pushing an agenda here per se, or telling people to vote third party per se. What I am saying is that I feel it's important to vote in the process regardless, and OK to vote your conscience vs party line, but vote you should.
Personally, I tend to vote issues and people, and don't give a damn what party they are with. I try and find the candidate that fits what I think is best for the country, etc, etc (you know the drill there) and let the chips all where they fall.
Again, not to say I have not voted for a candidate for no other reason than the alternative so bad, I felt my hand was forced to keep them out of office, but such is Democracy and all that.
What say you? How do you deal with it?
(1) https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=108982&highlight=obama
montanadave
07-19-12, 10:57
I will vote my conscience.
I have heard all the arguments. But, at the end of the day, I answer to myself and I will do what feels right to me. I really don't give a rip what others think about my decision. We are each accountable for our own ballot.
I vote for the most viable candidate, period. It's a defacto single party anyway.
The stigma associated with voting third party was wrought from the republocrats/demicans banding together to keep all others out and keep power in fewer hands.
Quite frankly the stigma being fomented still to this day regarding third party candidates is vomitous. It is somewhat responisble for the strong hold the single party republocrats have on this country.
People have been feared into voting repub or dem for decades and it has worked to keep new blood and new ideas out of our political spectrum. It has stagnated us to our current state.
RON PAUL 2012 (No other candidate has a viable plan to get the country back on track as far as I have seen...)
This thread is a spin off from the other (1) and I thought a stand alone topic.
Do you vote you Conscience or do you vote party line? It seems most agree the current two party system aint working so well.
Why are those the only two choices?
I vote either strategically or tactically, for what I think will provide the best realistic outcome for the country/state/city (depending on what sort of election it is).
(Example of tactical: my dad voted for Obama in the primary [only], as a way of blocking Hillary, who at the time, was ahead and the one everyone feared. At general election time he voted for McCain.
Example of strategic: voting for Romney or McCain or whatever the "lesser of two evils" is -- see below)
I have voted third party before. I have also held my nose and voted for the "lesser of two evils".
For the strict "conscience" folks, that means that you realistically vote against your best interests.
As someone said before in one of these threads, you can't "turn an aircraft carrier on a dime" and that means that sometimes you have to accept that the "lesser of two evils" is a better choice because, while everything won't magically turn around, it lessens the slope of the downward path you/we/the country is/are on, which buys time for someone else to come along later and apply a little more rudder to increase the turn a little more. Doing that over and over will eventually lead to a righted ship. But it takes lots of time, and the willingness to vote in a strategic way. The same way that sometimes you need to retreat or fallback in a way in order to better your position for later action.
The liberals understand this very well. Which is why we are in the deep cr*p we are in now. They know that they can achieve their ends through lots of small votes that always compromise towards the their ends. They don't demand their whole enchilada at once. They propose X and accept X/2 as a result, where Y is what they really want and Y = many many many times X.
Conservatives and libertarians will have to do the same thing in the other direction if they every want to make things really better. Demanding the whole enchilada up front won't get you anything, and unless you are willing to take LOTS of small bites out of the thing and slowly turn things around, you will end up with nothing.
If I am trying to buy a new rifle that costs $1000, but I don't have $1000, and I don't want to go in to debt, do I just give up? No. I put $5 here, $10 there, $1 here, $25 there away in the bank/glass jar/in my mattress and eventually I have saved enough to buy the rifle. It may take me lots of time -- months or even years to do so, but I avoid the debt and eventually get what I want. Same thing in elections. Demanding the whole thing now only puts you in debt or you walk away sad because you can't have it now, and you never get it. But working on lots of small actions, slowly turning the aircraft carrier, will eventually end up getting you to your destination, or at least close to it.
----
I vote for the most viable candidate, period. It's a defacto single party anyway.
The stigma associated with voting third party was wrought from the republocrats/demicans banding together to keep all others out and keep power in fewer hands.
Quite frankly the stigma being fomented still to this day regarding third party candidates is vomitous. It is somewhat responisble for the strong hold the single party republocrats have on this country.
People have been feared into voting repub or dem for decades and it has worked to keep new blood and new ideas out of our political spectrum. It has stagnated us to our current state.
RON PAUL 2012 (No other candidate has a viable plan to get the country back on track as far as I have seen...)
Unfortunately, this is not true (not about RP, but about 2 party system). There is a rather practical reason why the 2 party system exists. It was designed that way, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and is a result of how we conduct elections. This should have been learned in Civics class in HS or college.
This design element is the "winner takes all" system. In a winner takes all system, the losers band together to try and become the winners the next time around. It is not some nefarious plan to keep out 3rd parties, it is merely political darwinism/evolution that draws all the various losers together into an opposing party so that they have a chance to be the winners next time.
Proportional parliamentary systems can handle lots of parties as there is not the incentive to band together since you don't need 50.001% of the vote to go your way the next time around.
This is why lots of parliamentary systems are full of all sorts of radicals and why the radicals can often exert influence far beyond their size. They are the last party to join the coalition to get the larger parties into the government.
And this is also why the politics in the US is generally more "centrist" (and why the independent voters are often the most important as the can swing things either way, and the independents are most often more centrist). Obviously it has been tacking slightly to the left over the last many decades, on average, and even a few degrees off center eventually lands you way way off course. But in general US politics is more centrist than other countries who have different systems.
----
RancidSumo
07-19-12, 12:09
This election is the first time I will be old enough to vote and I will not be voting just to keep Obama out of office since Romney is just as bad. I will be writing in Ron Paul.
montanadave
07-19-12, 12:12
Chad, you've been beating that same drum forever. And we're still neck deep in shit.
C'mon, just admit it. Ya want a mormon in the White House and you're gonna do everything ya can to get folks to hold their nose and vote for Romney, even if he is a complete stinker. :laugh:
And please, no lengthy or indignant rebuttal. I've heard all your arguments copious times and don't really care to do it all over again.
That, and I'm just flippin' ya some shit. :smile:
Chad, you've been beating that same drum forever. And we're still neck deep in shit.
C'mon, just admit it. Ya want a mormon in the White House and you're gonna do everything ya can to get folks to hold their nose and vote for Romney, even if he is a complete stinker. :laugh:
And please, no lengthy or indignant rebuttal. I've heard all your arguments copious times and don't really care to do it all over again.
That, and I'm just flippin' ya some shit. :smile:
I have no desire to see a Mormon in the WH. I don't care what religion the guy has, if any, as long as he works towards a better end result.
The "vote your conscience" people have been beating their horse for far longer, and look what sort of cr*p we are in now because of it.
FWIW: I voted Ron Paul in the primary and will vote Romney in the general election.
---
Unfortunately, this is not true (not about RP, but about 2 party system). There is a rather practical reason why the 2 party system exists. It was designed that way, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and is a result of how we conduct elections. This should have been learned in Civics class in HS or college.
This design element is the "winner takes all" system. In a winner takes all system, the losers band together to try and become the winners the next time around. It is not some nefarious plan to keep out 3rd parties, it is merely political darwinism/evolution that draws all the various losers together into an opposing party so that they have a chance to be the winners next time.
Proportional parliamentary systems can handle lots of parties as there is not the incentive to band together since you don't need 50.001% of the vote to go your way the next time around.
This is why lots of parliamentary systems are full of all sorts of radicals and why the radicals can often exert influence far beyond their size. They are the last party to join the coalition to get the larger parties into the government.
And this is also why the politics in the US is generally more "centrist" (and why the independent voters are often the most important as the can swing things either way, and the independents are most often more centrist). Obviously it has been tacking slightly to the left over the last many decades, on average, and even a few degrees off center eventually lands you way way off course. But in general US politics is more centrist than other countries who have different systems.
----
I am well aware- and did learn how our system was designed; FYI. Vote for whom you like and how you like, but don't start the condescending "you should've learned that in HS or college" BS. I know how the system was designed; that's why I am so pissed that it is broken and not many care to take notice.
Where we obviously diverge is that I see the current state of the system as a mockery of what was intended.
I won't thread jack here (not too much anyways...), but suffice it to say that I do not believe in a separation of the current parties- as I've posited in my previous post in this thread.
Both parties have the same handlers/$ backing them and as such the two party system is broken and a defacto single party exists and has amalgamated into a circus of planned and known outcomes for those that are actually in control and at the reins. I'm not saying it's 100% locked-up, but damn close.
Anytime a third party comes along that jives well with the populace, the "parties" put everything else on hold and band together to stimey the bloke out of any votes utilizing whatever method necessary; oft citing the exact same things many in this forum have regarding third parties. "Swing votes..." I know, but I see it as much larger than that.
Both parties vote along the same lines almost 90% of the time (And 90% of the time it is to screw us subjects over by taxing us further and selling off our soverignty in many forms and shapes), bi-partisan is just a buzz word.
On the big issues like Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act, NDAA, Drones, etc. they walk hand in hand and sell us out along with our liberty.
Both parties vote themselves uber-benefits and awesome pay rises above and beyond what us subjects would allow them. Both parties are corrupt beyond recognition.
Speaking of evolution; holding back a vote for a real candidate with a real viable plan to help this country is thwarting evolution itself.
I am well aware- and did learn how our system was designed; FYI. Vote for whom you like and how you like, but don't start the condescending "you should've learned that in HS or college" BS. I know how the system was designed; that's why I am so pissed that it is broken and not many care to take notice.
Where we obviously diverge is that I see the current state of the system as a mockery of what was intended.
I won't thread jack here (not too much anyways...), but suffice it to say that I do not believe in a separation of the current parties- as I've posited in my previous post in this thread.
Both parties have the same handlers/$ backing them and as such the two party system is broken and a defacto single party exists and has amalgamated into a circus of planned and known outcomes for those that are actually in control and at the reins. I'm not saying it's 100% locked-up, but damn close.
Anytime a third party comes along that jives well with the populace, the "parties" put everything else on hold and band together to stimey the bloke out of any votes utilizing whatever method necessary; oft citing the exact same things many in this forum have regarding third parties. "Swing votes..." I know, but I see it as much larger than that.
Both parties vote along the same lines almost 90% of the time (And 90% of the time it is to screw us subjects over by taxing us further and selling off our soverignty in many forms and shapes), bi-partisan is just a buzz word.
On the big issues like Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act, NDAA, Drones, etc. they walk hand in hand and sell us out along with our liberty.
Both parties vote themselves uber-benefits and awesome pay rises above and beyond what us subjects would allow them. Both parties are corrupt beyond recognition.
Speaking of evolution; holding back a vote for a real candidate with a real viable plan to help this country is thwarting evolution itself.
So you know how it works, and why it is, yet you still think that you can change it? It is inherent in a "winner takes all" system. It is not about parties banding together to stamp out newcomers.
So you know how it works, and why it is, yet you still think that you can change it? It is inherent in a "winner takes all" system. It is not about parties banding together to stamp out newcomers.
Of course it is. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that," and the two parties do band together very quickly to any person or party they deem a threat to their power base. It is, as you say, inherent to the set up of course, but to think the two parties in power don't come to together to block what they view as 'outsiders' to their system is naive to the extreme. Just as countries who don't see eye to eye will come together to fight a common foe they consider a potentially larger threat, as will individuals, as will companies, etc so does the current two parties with 99% of the power.
They don't like each other, but they like outsiders to their little system even less, that's for damn sure.
Of course it is. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that," and the two parties do band together very quickly to any person or party they deem a threat to their power base. It is, as you say, inherent to the set up of course, but to think the two parties in power don't come to together to block what they view as 'outsiders' to their system is naive to the extreme.
No, it is not. What is naive is to believe that the parties are monolithic entities controlled by one person of group (each party, not together).
Parties are a sum of their parts and those parts often contest with one another. There is no central unit that controls the party. The RNC and DNC try, of course, but they do not have strict control. Witness the "Tea Party" as an example. Ask Sen Lugar how that central party control is working out.
Now, there are "leadership" positions in each party and of course they do have some power. No argument there.
But the parties are composed of a bunch of competing factions. Those factions have agreed to work together under a given party's banner but it is not a monolithic entity.
The social conservatives going together in an uneasy alliance with the fiscal conservatives. Sometimes the libertarian folks will join in and sometimes not.
When someone else comes along that threatens that cooperation of these factions, naturally they work together to stamp that out. That is normal dynamics of the system. Not some central control.
Just as countries who don't see eye to eye will come together to fight a common foe they consider a potentially larger threat, as will individuals, as will companies, etc so does the current two parties with 99% of the power.
They don't like each other, but they like outsiders to their little system even less, that's for damn sure.
Sorry, but there is not a "little system" that they control. The fact that there are two main parties is, as has been explained, an artifact [whether purposefully or not] of the "winner takes all system." What you see as banding together to control the "little system" is really group dynamics working within this "winner takes all" system where the losers try and work together to become the winners.
Are there groups behind the scenes financing parts of it? Sure. And do these people see eye to eye? Probably not. I doubt Soros has the Koch brothers or Adelson over for tea very often.
Lots of things that look coordinated are not, they just appear to be, because the reaction of people who threaten your power is to fight them.
--
No, it is not. What is naive is to believe that the parties are monolithic entities controlled by one person of group (each party, not together).
Then we don't agree nor will we on that particular point. It has nothing to with "one person" or "monolithic entities" per se but the simple reality of human nature, groups, and power in general as controlled by human beings and their need to protect it as they view it.
Then we don't agree nor will we on that particular point. It has nothing to with "one person" or "monolithic entities" per se but the simple reality of human nature, groups, and power in general as controlled by human beings and their need to protect it as they view it.
I think we agree more than we understand.
I think the difference is not the facts, but the interpretation of the facts. It sounds to me like you think there is an overt cooperation where the asses and elephants get together overtly to protect their racket. I see it as natural group dynamics where groups fight for their supremacy, not in a coordinated way however, but to similar aims.
I would think that the Democrats would welcome a third party challenger that weakened the Republicans, And vice versa.
Good question you brought up.
-
So you know how it works, and why it is, yet you still think that you can change it? It is inherent in a "winner takes all" system. It is not about parties banding together to stamp out newcomers.
I think you're misunderstaning me. The system as it was deisgned works well enough as long as the two parties are autonomous of one another; which I find not to be the case now a days.
The parties have but a dimes difference betwixt them. I believe it is a circus show; unknowns and some known in the shadows controlling their PR agents to maintain the facade; maintain the illusion of a two-party system when indeed it is a single party system.
Even if they are not a single party as I believe/claim- the "Right" as they claim to be- is center left these days; the left is very far left. I believe a third party candidate that is actually to the right would be good for a lot of reasons. YMMV.
Besides, if we don't punish them for bringing lame ducks (Even if you believe the system isn't gamed and there are actually 2 partys) to the table they will continue to do so. Slap them in the face with your vote/thier poor choices and say I would've voted for ___(Insert party affiliation) if they would've just put forth a viable candidate, period.
If the RNC really wanted to make waves in this election; they would've gone off playbook and picked a candidate that not only had a chance of garnering support from a broad section of Americans- but a candidate who has a plan to better this country (The fact they didn't should be a clue); instead they made the same choice they have for a decade+; some easily controlled turd who will bend to the will of anyone who will give more power and more $; and who goes with the "flow" of politics as usual.
Doc Safari
07-19-12, 14:06
I don't believe in political parties or church denominations.
Still, I have to hold my nose when I vote most of the time, so probably I don't vote my conscience either--LOL.
Chad, you've been beating that same drum forever. And we're still neck deep in shit.
C'mon, just admit it. Ya want a mormon in the White House and you're gonna do everything ya can to get folks to hold their nose and vote for Romney, even if he is a complete stinker. :laugh:
And please, no lengthy or indignant rebuttal. I've heard all your arguments copious times and don't really care to do it all over again.
That, and I'm just flippin' ya some shit. :smile:
maybe he saw how bad Harry Reid is and truly does not care about Mormon or not but cares about people and principle :)
I think some people must think people of religion are all the same ? like somehow all Mormons are conservative or all Jews are democrats etc.. ?
I think you're misunderstaning me. The system as it was deisgned works well enough as long as the two parties are autonomous of one another; which I find not to be the case now a days.
The parties have but a dimes difference betwixt them. I believe it is a circus show; unknowns and some known in the shadows controlling their PR agents to maintain the facade; maintain the illusion of a two-party system when indeed it is a single party system.
I keep hearing this, but have yet to see any concrete evidence of it.
Even if they are not a single party as I believe/claim- the "Right" as they claim to be- is center left these days; the left is very far left. I believe a third party candidate that is actually to the right would be good for a lot of reasons. YMMV.
I believe that a candidate actually to the "right" [actually more libertarian] would be a good thing. This is why there are primaries. This is how the Tea Party works. Even RP, who was a Presidential Candidate of a 3rd Party many years ago believes that, which is why he went through the Republican Party this time.
I don't think a 3rd party candidate is a good way to get that though since the system does not function such that way, whether purposefully designed through "winner takes all" or as a side effect of the "winner takes all".
Besides, if we don't punish them for bringing lame ducks (Even if you believe the system isn't gamed and there are actually 2 partys) to the table they will continue to do so. Slap them in the face with your vote/thier poor choices and say I would've voted for ___(Insert party affiliation) if they would've just put forth a viable candidate, period.
And that has worked, how?
If the RNC really wanted to make waves in this election; they would've gone off playbook and picked a candidate that not only had a chance of garnering support from a broad section of Americans- but a candidate who has a plan to better this country (The fact they didn't should be a clue); instead they made the same choice they have for a decade+; some easily controlled turd who will bend to the will of anyone who will give more power and more $; and who goes with the "flow" of politics as usual.
The RNC did not pick a candidate at all. The party membership (and agitators in states that have open primaries) picked the candidate.
I don't disagree that major changes need to take place and that we'd all be better off with better candidates. I do disagree that the way to do that is a 3rd party. While the candidate parties have changed in the "2 party system", it is not realistic to think that that is a possibility today. The changes in the past were long ago and had different circumstances that caused them to come about. (And were they really new parties? Or just that one faction in a party overcame the other in size and was able to form a new majority party?)
This is why I say we need to get everyone from the dog catcher on up to be a good candidate and that until you can get local politics fixed, you won't fix national politics. You need to build your party from the bottom up, not the top down.
---
maybe he saw how bad Harry Reid is and truly does not care about Mormon or not but cares about people and principle :)
I think some people must think people of religion are all the same ? like somehow all Mormons are conservative or all Jews are democrats etc.. ?
I am LDS (Mormon). While I live in Utah now, I did not grow up here and only have lived here about 1/3 of my life in total, over several periods.
Utah Mormons are pretty conservative as a group. In the men's meeting one Sunday, the head guy asked "who has a gun" when trying to organize some extra curricular activities for the membership that would be interesting and draw attendance. Only one guy did not raise his hand. He was the resident Democrat (and although I give him crap, he is a nice guy and a friend and we kid one another and he also wants to be taken out shooting to learn). That is how it is in Utah.
But growing up in Massachusetts, it was not like that at church (and I am not talking about guns). You had all sorts of folks at church, all good people, but all over the map politically. From European style socialists, to libertarians, to conservatives. The Utah-transplants were usually the more conservative bunch. And we all got along, enjoyed one another's company at activities, and some of these people are still my friends, though I have not seen them in 15 or 20 years.
Look at Romney. He is a non-Utah Mormon and as we all know, not the most conservative of candidates (unfortunately). He is no where near my first choice. (Neither was Hatch when he was running for President a few elections ago).
Harry Reid, as I understand it, came to the LDS church as an adult. I personally don't know how he reconciles some of his actions with his beliefs, but that is not really for me to judge. But he is a polar opposite.
Religion for me is a personal thing and hinges on my own personal spiritual experiences. While my spiritual beliefs color my political beliefs and actions, "name" alone has no meaning to me. So I don't care if a "Mormon" is elected as President and am not voting for Romney in November because of that. Since I am not a Romney supporter in the sense that I was with him from the beginning, and I vote for Mr Paul in the Primary, I won't say any more specifically about him.
--
I typically vote my conscience.
In 1992 for example I simply couldn't vote for Bush, and I wasn't crazy about Clinton so I voted for Perot. This is because both the Republicans and the Democrats were running gun banners who were ATF apologists.
I didn't have a problem voting for Bush Jr. because despite the fact that he as somewhat of a dimwit he was a far better option than Gore or Kerry.
The McCain / Obama election was the hardest one for me as I generally do not care for McCain. But it became obvious McCain didn't have a hope in hell of winning so I voted a futile block.
I'm hardly crazy about Romney but he is a much better option than McCain was so I feel fine about voting for him. The problem is I also don't think he has a hope in hell and the Republicans have probably given Obama his second term.
I wish somebody like Ron Paul had won the primary, but that didn't happen.
This is bold statement that is not intended to insult others. I'm just expressing my honest,unabashed beliefs.
If you vote,in this upcoming Presidential election, for any candidate other than Mitt Romney you are naive, an idiot or a traitor.
SJC3081
The purpose of this post is not to insult or violate any forum rules.
I'm just expressing my opinion and not directing my above statement to any member in particular.
Why are those the only two choices?
I vote either strategically or tactically, for what I think will provide the best realistic outcome for the country/state/city (depending on what sort of election it is).
(Example of tactical: my dad voted for Obama in the primary [only], as a way of blocking Hillary, who at the time, was ahead and the one everyone feared. At general election time he voted for McCain.
Example of strategic: voting for Romney or McCain or whatever the "lesser of two evils" is -- see below)
I have voted third party before. I have also held my nose and voted for the "lesser of two evils".
For the strict "conscience" folks, that means that you realistically vote against your best interests.
As someone said before in one of these threads, you can't "turn an aircraft carrier on a dime" and that means that sometimes you have to accept that the "lesser of two evils" is a better choice because, while everything won't magically turn around, it lessens the slope of the downward path you/we/the country is/are on, which buys time for someone else to come along later and apply a little more rudder to increase the turn a little more. Doing that over and over will eventually lead to a righted ship. But it takes lots of time, and the willingness to vote in a strategic way. The same way that sometimes you need to retreat or fallback in a way in order to better your position for later action.
The liberals understand this very well. Which is why we are in the deep cr*p we are in now. They know that they can achieve their ends through lots of small votes that always compromise towards the their ends. They don't demand their whole enchilada at once. They propose X and accept X/2 as a result, where Y is what they really want and Y = many many many times X.
Conservatives and libertarians will have to do the same thing in the other direction if they every want to make things really better. Demanding the whole enchilada up front won't get you anything, and unless you are willing to take LOTS of small bites out of the thing and slowly turn things around, you will end up with nothing.
If I am trying to buy a new rifle that costs $1000, but I don't have $1000, and I don't want to go in to debt, do I just give up? No. I put $5 here, $10 there, $1 here, $25 there away in the bank/glass jar/in my mattress and eventually I have saved enough to buy the rifle. It may take me lots of time -- months or even years to do so, but I avoid the debt and eventually get what I want. Same thing in elections. Demanding the whole thing now only puts you in debt or you walk away sad because you can't have it now, and you never get it. But working on lots of small actions, slowly turning the aircraft carrier, will eventually end up getting you to your destination, or at least close to it.
----
Perhaps in the long run it IS in my best interests? Perhaps I'm telling my "friends" that I no longer approve of them putting a turd between two pieces of bread and serving it to me as a club sandwich? Also, them more disgruntled and intractable we become, the less money and votes they get. They only really care about money and votes, so that's the only way to get tthrough to them.
I'm no longer interested in propping up my sorry-assed party. At a certain point, I'd almost rather see the absolute WORST candidate in the history of the world get elected. The sooner you reboot the system, the sooner you restore functionality.
This is bold statement that is not intended to insult others. I'm just expressing my honest,unabashed beliefs.
If you vote,in this upcoming Presidential election, for any candidate other than Mitt Romney you are naive, an idiot or a traitor.
SJC3081
The purpose of this post is not to insult or violate any forum rules.
I'm just expressing my opinion and not directing my above statement to any member in particular.
Not to be insulting, but your opinion is worthless. :D
Perhaps in the long run it IS in my best interests? Perhaps I'm telling my "friends" that I no longer approve of them putting a turd between two pieces of bread and serving it to me as a club sandwich? Also, them more disgruntled and intractable we become, the less money and votes they get. They only really care about money and votes, so that's the only way to get tthrough to them.
I'm no longer interested in propping up my sorry-assed party. At a certain point, I'd almost rather see the absolute WORST candidate in the history of the world get elected. The sooner you reboot the system, the sooner you restore functionality.
It might be in your best interest if, in the long run, it lead to fundamental change. But that is nigh impossible to actually happening. So no, you are not voting in your own best interest, even long term.
There were those who were disgusted with McCain, and thought that getting Obama in would be the "absolute WORST candidate" and help move people to fundamental change. Worked out really well, didn't it.
The larger the mountain is, the harder it is to move it so hoping for some fundamental change to come in the future through some miracle candidate is a lost cause, because the mountain you are trying to move is just getting bigger in the meantime. If you can slow the rate of that mountain building down, you buy your time for the miracle and marginally improve conditions in the mean time.
This thinking of yours is why the Democrats and liberals in both parties have gotten as strong as they have: they are willing to make minor course corrections and not have to have the fundamental change all at once.
---
It might be in your best interest if, in the long run, it lead to fundamental change. But that is nigh impossible to actually happening. So no, you are not voting in your own best interest, even long term.
There were those who were disgusted with McCain, and thought that getting Obama in would be the "absolute WORST candidate" and help move people to fundamental change. Worked out really well, didn't it.
The larger the mountain is, the harder it is to move it so hoping for some fundamental change to come in the future through some miracle candidate is a lost cause, because the mountain you are trying to move is just getting bigger in the meantime. If you can slow the rate of that mountain building down, you buy your time for the miracle and marginally improve conditions in the mean time.
This thinking of yours is why the Democrats and liberals in both parties have gotten as strong as they have: they are willing to make minor course corrections and not have to have the fundamental change all at once.
---
Care to show me where this alleged "fundamental change" started and what it's progress has been so far? Because all I've seen from the GOP is a de-evolution and worsening prognosis for the future. I'm not really interested in waiting until the Tea Party conversion is complete, because I'll be worm food by the time that happens. :rolleyes:
lifebreath
07-19-12, 16:05
I vote my conscience AND a straight party line.
I inevitably vote straight Republican party ticket, because they are much more likely to align with my views than Democrat. I don't go off the reservation, because we're stuck (at present) in a two-party system, so I want my vote to count. I say I "vote my conscience," because, even though the individuals my not perfectly align with my ideals, more republicans in office means my views have a better chance of being implemented to some degree than if I vote otherwise.
So, my conscience dictates a pragmatic vote directed by my ideals but based in the realistic constraints of the present.
Care to show me where this alleged "fundamental change" started and what it's progress has been so far?
If you read what I wrote, I did not say that it had, though the Tea Party, that you brought up, is a start of a fundamental change, if it can last.
Because all I've seen from the GOP is a de-evolution and worsening prognosis for the future. I'm not really interested in waiting until the Tea Party conversion is complete, because I'll be worm food by the time that happens. :rolleyes:
Yet you were the one talking about long term benefits of your head-in-the sand approach...
The_War_Wagon
07-19-12, 16:55
"A vote cast in good conscience, is NEVER a wasted vote."
- John Adams: Founding Father, 2nd President of the United States -
"A vote cast in good conscience, is NEVER a wasted vote."
- John Adams: Founding Father, 2nd President of the United States -
There is a difference between a "wasted" vote and an "ineffectual, against your own best interests" vote.
If you read what I wrote, I did not say that it had, though the Tea Party, that you brought up, is a start of a fundamental change, if it can last.
Yet you were the one talking about long term benefits of your head-in-the sand approach...
Not head in the sand at all. You can't just stay home and expect anyone to get the message. You should go vote, you just don't have to vote for ANYONE that doesn't represent your political views. I've stated multiple times that I will vote, but I will not support Romney. It's not that he's a less than ideal candidate, it's that he's a completely substandard candidate.
I also make sure to let those in power know WHY I will not support them, regardless of their party affiliation. Being a Repugnican doesn't give you a pass, just ask Lugar and Specter. My rep just fell in the primary race. he was a do-nothing alcoholic and he got his ass fired. Good riddance!
What say you? How do you deal with it?
Will, I have thought a lot about that. I have come to believe that every vote counts and even a non-vote counts. The bean counters are typically quite good at what they do and it's usually pretty clear where votes are going when not placed with the two top teams. Not always but most of the time. It's rare to have a three equally viable candidates in most elections.
I honestly believe it comes down to two things in a my life. I can decide to lead or follow / win or lose.
I mean no disrespect to anyone that "votes their conscience" but in my way of thinking they have chosen to lose. They have made the decision to follow. They have chosen to allow their vote to become a tax. Their vote will be collected and doled back out to whomever society and the bean counters have decided it will go to in any given election.
For instance in this election, VA is very evenly split. We have someone that may run as a third party and people like him so they will draw votes. He has ZERO chance of becoming President. Even if he was the most brilliant candidate imaginable, he can not win this election because he has not proven himself to the nation. For that reason, I find his conscience corrupt for even putting his name on the ballot.
Here is his web site. As you can see, he opposes Obama, yet somehow his conscience will allow him to help Obama regain election as he will be in direct competition with Romney. Many voters feel the same. http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/.
We don't let three teams play in the Super Bowl nor World Series just because a few fans can prove that a third team is superior.
I believe the vote should represent my best effort to have government change in the manner that I want. Even if I thought all of the 3rd party candidates were just off the chart better than either of the two that will win, I still have to pick one of those to win.
Especially a Presidential election is not a place to "practice". I know it would not be possible for me to do so because I am just an ordinary citizen, but can you imagine if you were having one of those SWAT competitions and all the members had trained and I simply wanted to participate because I "meant well" and my head was in a good a good place regarding the LEO community in general? I don't think anyone's conscience would sit well with that and most of all, even if you would allow it, my conscience should not allow me to even consider it.
The vote is a cornerstone of America. It's more important than a basketball game, a football game, a shooting match, or any other event. Yet for some reason... many Americans will enter the voting station with the forethought that they indeed are simply going to lose and are perfectly ok with it. No other facet of life do they take that attitude. Even flipping a coin, heads or tails, they are more competitive and have more of a winners mindset.
The way I see it, we as Americans give ourselves a 50/50 chance of winning every few years. I have to vote for one of those two. My conscience will not allow me to go to the voting station and practice.
Practice should be handled locally, before election time. Build up a good candidate. Get them elected to Mayor, Governor, Senator. Call your local talk radio guy. Have them interview people that you want to represent you. Help the people get their names out there.
One simply can't start at a top down Presidential election and expect to change things when it's beyond clear that either Romney or Obama will win this election unless something unforeseen happens.
You can't organize on election day. That 3rd party has to be an equal 3rd right now. If that were the case, then one's conscience would truly have three viable choices. As it stands now we don't.
I appreciate why a lot of people "vote their conscience" knowing their guy will not win but I have really come to see that as the government taxing my vote because for any given election it can be reasonably calculated as to where that vote will go and generally speaking I have found that it ends up helping the person I would least like to see elected.
I helped America get where it is today for better or worse and through action or in-action. I have one of two choices to make when election day rolls around.
"A vote cast in good conscience, is NEVER a wasted vote."
- John Adams: Founding Father, 2nd President of the United States -
agree :) while some can argue you should have voted this way or that ? fact is you voted and voted for what you thought and that is what voting is all about !!!
to me the only vote wasted is one that is not cast !!!!!
those that say those are throw away ? maybe but maybe others who see that vote use ron paul as example might next time think HMMM I would have voted for him but thought nobody else would have and if I do I am throwing it away ! and maybe if I and others just voted what WE thought not what others said he could have made a bigger dent and maybe enough next time he or other outsider might win :)
This is bold statement that is not intended to insult others. I'm just expressing my honest,unabashed beliefs.
If you vote,in this upcoming Presidential election, for any candidate other than Mitt Romney you are naive, an idiot or a traitor.
SJC3081
The purpose of this post is not to insult or violate any forum rules.
I'm just expressing my opinion and not directing my above statement to any member in particular.
Honestly, you could make the same statement about voting for ANYONE in the last 4 or 5 elections. Nobody is rescuing the Republic, the parties are just taking turns stealing from us.
They have far more in common with each other than anyone they claim to represent. And if anyone doesn't realize that they are naive, an idiot or a traitor.
Just my opinion, not picking on anyone.
montanadave
07-19-12, 20:51
Honestly, you could make the same statement about voting for ANYONE in the last 4 or 5 elections. Nobody is rescuing the Republic, the parties are just taking turns stealing from us.
They have far more in common with each other than anyone they claim to represent. And if anyone doesn't realize that they are naive, an idiot or a traitor.
Just my opinion, not picking on anyone.
For what it's worth, your opinion is shared by a lot of folks.
why I say:
choosing republican or democrat is like asking to be punched in the left side or right side of the face and we say we dont want to be punched at all ! they say sorry that is not a option !!!!
why I say:
choosing republican or democrat is like asking to be punched in the left side or right side of the face and we say we dont want to be punched at all ! they say sorry that is not a option !!!!
I don't believe it is a coincidence that Group A represents about half of the values of most normal people while destroying the other half and Group B represents the other half of the values while destroying the first half and BOTH claiming to be the only ones who have your values and best interests in mind.
The sad reality is people get into politics for money and power. In order to get money and power they claim to serve the people. Anyone foolish enough to enter politics for noble reasons like "serving the people" will be relegated to the political equivalent of hall monitor or janitor and anyone who poses a risk of actually gaining the power to "serve the people" will quickly be destroyed by those who are there to gain money and power.
In many ways the mere desire to enter politics should disqualify most candidates. Candidates who have been lawyers or have degrees in Political Science should be especially precluded.
I think we'd be a lot better off if we elected our Congress by lottery similar to being called for jury duty. I really believe we could randomly pick people off the street and they couldn't make it much worse.
I think this election is also about voting for our future
Maybe one is the same old bs political junk
But the other wants to transform this country even more radically away from our founding fathers vision
Voting my concious this time around might have to be at least getting things back on course then next changing the driver :)
montanadave
07-19-12, 22:03
I don't believe it is a coincidence that Group A represents about half of the values of most normal people while destroying the other half and Group B represents the other half of the values while destroying the first half and BOTH claiming to be the only ones who have your values and best interests in mind.
The sad reality is people get into politics for money and power. In order to get money and power they claim to serve the people. Anyone foolish enough to enter politics for noble reasons like "serving the people" will be relegated to the political equivalent of hall monitor or janitor and anyone who poses a risk of actually gaining the power to "serve the people" will quickly be destroyed by those who are there to gain money and power.
In many ways the mere desire to enter politics should disqualify most candidates. Candidates who have been lawyers or have degrees in Political Science should be especially precluded.
I think we'd be a lot better off if we elected our Congress by lottery similar to being called for jury duty. I really believe we could randomly pick people off the street and they couldn't make it much worse.
I realize my agreement is like the kiss of death around here but you are so right on the money.
It ain't about "red" states and "blue" states. The only color calling the shots is green and the plutocrats hold all the chips.
CarlosDJackal
07-20-12, 12:22
Despite what people say, the "lesser-of-two-evils" has always been something we all face pretty much everyday. For example, the other day I had to choose between filling up at a gas station I was driving by but was boycotting at $3.07 a gallon; versus a gas station that I may drive by tomorrow for $2.95 a gallon.
Which one is a lesser of two evils is based on the current situation. If my car was running on "E", the higher-priced gas station that I was boycotting looks much better because I need the fuel now. Otherwise, I might face the consequence of running out of gas or the gas prices jumping up so that there isn't any financial advantage waiting until tomorrow (this has happened to me plenty of times).
The way I see it is any vote for Romney is realistically a vote against obama. But any vote for someone other than Romney is basically a vote for obama. While it might be against our "conscience" to vote for either one, in the end, unless we can come up with a VIABLE third candidate, it comes down to a choice between Romney or obama.
I'm sure that during the 1992 Presidential Elections a lot of Gun Owners voted based on their conscience. Just how much comfort their conscience gave them when some of these very individuals had to give up some of their rights thanks to the Assault Weapons Ban, Lautenberg Law, etc.
My question is will following your conscience help keep our Rights as Guaranteed by the US Constitution, preserve our military, restore our economy, prevent unnecessary increases in taxes, stem the flow of illegal aliens, reduce crime, reduce dependence on welfare, and keep our country safer? Or will following your conscience allow the current dictator to play more golf and take more vacations on our dime? JM2CW.
Yup agree :)
I think in the past the people were more in the middle or midst of the two parties over the last 50 years or so the groups really started ignoring the people and sliding away from the people
At this point I look to history and look at some things Kenedy did and he would be considered a radical right wing conservative by some folks !
I don't believe it is a coincidence that Group A represents about half of the values of most normal people while destroying the other half and Group B represents the other half of the values while destroying the first half and BOTH claiming to be the only ones who have your values and best interests in mind.
The sad reality is people get into politics for money and power. In order to get money and power they claim to serve the people. Anyone foolish enough to enter politics for noble reasons like "serving the people" will be relegated to the political equivalent of hall monitor or janitor and anyone who poses a risk of actually gaining the power to "serve the people" will quickly be destroyed by those who are there to gain money and power.
In many ways the mere desire to enter politics should disqualify most candidates. Candidates who have been lawyers or have degrees in Political Science should be especially precluded.
I think we'd be a lot better off if we elected our Congress by lottery similar to being called for jury duty. I really believe we could randomly pick people off the street and they couldn't make it much worse.
No matter how one feels about Romney, a vote for any other candidate or not voting because of your conscience is a vote to re-elect obama. period.
While I know everyone likes to feel that they have a clear conscience when they vote, but you have to not be so naive about things. Realize that you might be taking votes away from the lesser of two evils.
Am I thrilled about Romney? Of course not. Do I despise just about everything that our current President says and does? Of course I do.
At this point I would take ANY ONE OF YOU (yes even you atheists) instead of Obama. I may think that some of you are complete morons, have no experience with running anything, will treat Christians with disrespect and will most likely screw every intern you can get your hands on. At the end of the day though, I know that you love your Country and are PRO gun. Two things I cannot say are true about our current President.
Point to the above is that you have to look for just ONE thing that is positive (or that you like) in a candidate and roll with that. For me, Romney is PRO business. He also knows how to make money and will help small business prosper. That one lone fact makes him a much better choice than Obama or writing in some third party name that will NEVER WIN.
Note; I fully get that people are sick of the two party system (as am I). I fully get that people want some REAL change. At some point though, you have to be realistic about what you are doing and the greater good. Push hard for your guy and then once they lose, support the candidate that is most likely going to BEAT the worst President in our history!
--Break Break--
For those of you that like a third party (which I am cool with), how much work did you actually do to help push them? Did you volunteer your time spreading the word about them to ALL your friends, neighbors and relatives? Did you hang signs everyplace you could? Did you max out the amount of money you could donate to their campaign? Did you help raise any money for them?
I know it is "fun" to be the black sheep and go with some third party person and then snub your nose at anyone that doesn't like your guy or just votes for the person that is most likely to beat the current President, but at the end of the day, you need to put your money where your mouth is. So if you haven't done all of the above, I would not say a word to anyone else about voting for the Republican candidate.
Do I put my money where my mouth is? Sure do. My wife and I have maxed out our contributions to the Romney campaign. You?
C4
No matter how one feels about Romney, a vote for any other candidate or not voting because of your conscience is a vote to re-elect obama. period.
Bingo. Plain, simple, the truth.
C4
The_War_Wagon
07-20-12, 13:56
For those of you that like a third party (which I am cool with), how much work did you actually do to help push them? Did you volunteer your time spreading the word about them to ALL your friends, neighbors and relatives? Did you hang signs everyplace you could? Did you max out the amount of money you could donate to their campaign? Did you help raise any money for them?
Hanging... sign... NOW! :D
http://www.constitutionparty.com/images/VoteForGoode.jpg
Goode/Clymer 2012!
Hanging... sign... NOW! :D
http://www.constitutionparty.com/images/VoteForGoode.jpg
Goode/Clymer 2012!
LOL, perfect example.
C4
This really isn't the election to sit home and pout due to ideology folks. We have an extremely serious situation that needs a full scale effort or God knows what will happen over the next four years. If Obama does win the hurdles will become even more numerous and much harder to overcome.
Great post Grant....
========================
As to Virgil Goode... you can tell just how disillusioned this man is regarding winning this election. Especially from about the 3:45 onward. He thinks "this is the year" people will wake up. Too bad he doesn't realize he is the one that is asleep. He's dreaming.
http://www.1140wrva.com/player/?station=WRVA-AM&program_name=podcast&program_id=LelandConway.xml&mid=22268463
No matter how one feels about Romney, a vote for any other candidate or not voting because of your conscience is a vote to re-elect obama. period.
Using that logic, the nomination of McCain last time around was a vote for Obama to win. So do we blame the GOP for getting Obama elected in the first place? If the GOP would actually give as a viable candidate we wouldn't need to worry about getting Obama out of office.
The GOP giving us Romney is the problem this time around. Nobody is obligated to vote for him as if we all owe the GOP our vote. That is the same mentality the Democrats use when they think they should automatically get all minority votes. Nobody owes the GOP anything, least of all votes...especially since they more than anyone else got Obama elected in the first place.
Giving us weak ass quasi liberals like Romney isn't helping correct that original problem either. You coming here and stating that it's everyone's duty or obligation to fix these **** ups by voting for the GOP's new weak ass quasi liberal candidate is only going to piss off some people who might have voted for Romney and change their minds.
So in a very real sense, that mentality and those who espouse it is costing the GOP votes.
Left alone, people intelligent enough to understand Obama is the greater threat will more than likely vote for Romney. People who aren't intelligent enough to see what Obama actually does will never vote for Romney. So all that can really be changed is maybe you can alienate some of those intelligent people to the point where they get so disgusted with the notion that they are somehow beholden to the GOP that they vote otherwise or not at all.
Am I thrilled about Romney? Of course not. Do I despise just about everything that our current President says and does? Of course I do.
At this point I would take ANY ONE OF YOU (yes even you atheists) instead of Obama. I may think that some of you are complete morons, have no experience with running anything, will treat Christians with disrespect and will most likely screw every intern you can get your hands on. At the end of the day though, I know that you love your Country and are PRO gun. Two things I cannot say are true about our current President.
Right there with you.
For those of you that like a third party (which I am cool with), how much work did you actually do to help push them? Did you volunteer your time spreading the word about them to ALL your friends, neighbors and relatives? Did you hang signs everyplace you could? Did you max out the amount of money you could donate to their campaign? Did you help raise any money for them?
I strongly supported Ron Paul, probably more than any other candidate in the past, right up until he failed to get the GOP nomination.
Using that logic, the nomination of McCain last time around was a vote for Obama to win. So do we blame the GOP for getting Obama elected in the first place? If the GOP would actually give as a viable candidate we wouldn't need to worry about getting Obama out of office.
The GOP giving us Romney is the problem this time around. Nobody is obligated to vote for him as if we all owe the GOP our vote. That is the same mentality the Democrats use when they think they should automatically get all minority votes. Nobody owes the GOP anything, least of all votes...especially since they more than anyone else got Obama elected in the first place.
Giving us weak ass quasi liberals like Romney isn't helping correct that original problem either. You coming here and stating that it's everyone's duty or obligation to fix these **** ups by voting for the GOP's new weak ass quasi liberal candidate is only going to piss off some people who might have voted for Romney and change their minds.
So in a very real sense, that mentality and those who espouse it is costing the GOP votes.
Left alone, people intelligent enough to understand Obama is the greater threat will more than likely vote for Romney. People who aren't intelligent enough to see what Obama actually does will never vote for Romney. So all that can really be changed is maybe you can alienate some of those intelligent people to the point where they get so disgusted with the notion that they are somehow beholden to the GOP that they vote otherwise or not at all.
I certainly do! It's ALL their fault that Obama is POTUS. I fully expect them to do the right thing and field a decent candidiate. And what do they do? They give us Romney. What a bunch of douchebags! :mad:
Right there with you.
This somewhat contradicts your previous post, unless I missed something.
I certainly do! It's ALL their fault that Obama is POTUS. I fully expect them to do the right thing and field a decent candidiate. And what do they do? They give us Romney. What a bunch of douchebags! :mad:
We voted. We lost.
I'm not sure who "they" is.
I look at history to make my decision. Where has sitting on our collective asses or being divided, bickering, and not voting Republican got us? Sure, there have been a few hiccups along the way but look at what it has cost us.
To be brief I'll start in the 20th Century.
Teddy Roosevelt - A rift between Roosevelt and William Howard Taft led to Roosevelt forming the Progressive party and splitting the Republicans allowing Woodrow Wilson to win the 1912 election. He would sign into law the National Income Tax aka the 16th Amendment, establish the Federal Reserve, and push the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act through Congress stifling free speech.
Herbert Hoover/FDR - I think voter apathy and economic conditions mostly out of Hoover's control (crash of 1929) lead to FDR being elected. FDR criticized Hoover's policies to combat the Great Depression, which were intended to be temporary measures, and then went on to implement those policies in the New Deal and ram them through the SC. Sound familiar?
The Conservative Coalition (consisting of Republicans and most Southern conservative Democrats) helped prevent FDR from packing the Supreme Court with more than the current nine justices. With Democrats controlling Congress and the SC, he was able to ram through the National Housing Act of 1934, National Labor Relations Act, Indian Reorganization Act, Social Security Act, and the Housing Act of 1937. What if Hoover would've been reelected? Would we still have these staples of liberalism in existence today?
Truman - Housing Act of 1949 and the first to support national health insurance.
JFK/LBJ - JFK laid the roots for LBJ's "Great Society" which lead to the Immigration Act of 1965, HUD, Medicare, Medicaid, and federal education funding.
LBJ vs Barry Goldwater - who wishes now they would've gotten out and voted for Goldwater? He was pro-military, fiscally conservative, anti-communist, anti-Nixon, and a states' rights advocate.
Reagan was a great President all things considered. He was formerly a liberal Democrat and admired FDR before later becoming a Republican. People tend to forget that. And then you go on to say that Romney's work in the highly liberal MA will dictate his actions as a President? I think he's smarter than that.
Clinton - Even though he was fairly moderate, where did NOT voting for Bush 1 get us? Luckily health care reform failed but we have him to thank for the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.
I believe if McCain had been elected we wouldn't be fighting the ACA battle today. Maybe another day, but not today. We have a much smaller but incremental strategic battle to win in the near future before we get more legislation rammed down our throats that could last decades. I want a future for my children should I choose to have any, not just hope the tides have turned for my grandchildren or great-grandchildren and have them believe they are waist deep in shit due to an apathetic and/or no compromise attitude of my generation.
We voted. We lost.
I'm not sure who "they" is.
Good question! How exactly did the GOP manage to lose their own ****ing election? It can't all be laid at the feet of spoilers in open primary states, so how did it happen? :mad:
This somewhat contradicts your previous post, unless I missed something.
These views seem similar to me...
Am I thrilled about Romney? Of course not. Do I despise just about everything that our current President says and does? Of course I do.
At this point I would take ANY ONE OF YOU (yes even you atheists) instead of Obama. I may think that some of you are complete morons, have no experience with running anything, will treat Christians with disrespect and will most likely screw every intern you can get your hands on. At the end of the day though, I know that you love your Country and are PRO gun. Two things I cannot say are true about our current President.
C4
I typically vote my conscience.
In 1992 for example I simply couldn't vote for Bush, and I wasn't crazy about Clinton so I voted for Perot. This is because both the Republicans and the Democrats were running gun banners who were ATF apologists.
I didn't have a problem voting for Bush Jr. because despite the fact that he as somewhat of a dimwit he was a far better option than Gore or Kerry.
The McCain / Obama election was the hardest one for me as I generally do not care for McCain. But it became obvious McCain didn't have a hope in hell of winning so I voted a futile block.
I'm hardly crazy about Romney but he is a much better option than McCain was so I feel fine about voting for him. The problem is I also don't think he has a hope in hell and the Republicans have probably given Obama his second term.
I wish somebody like Ron Paul had won the primary, but that didn't happen.
Belmont31R
07-20-12, 21:43
Said numerous times Romney was 'the pick' even before the first GOP debate or state vote.
Change your local delegate system. The country club republicans are so entrenched you might find yourself in handcuffs for challenging their rule, though.
Good question! How exactly did the GOP manage to lose their own ****ing election? It can't all be laid at the feet of spoilers in open primary states, so how did it happen? :mad:
The media and Axelrod managed to get Cain to withdraw with their hit squad, he must have been deemed a serious threat.
The smartest candidate, Gingrich, had lots of baggage.
Ron Paul has his isolationist views and his old newsletter.
People who are willing to play hardball politics with the TRUTH (Palin, Bachmann) are branded by the media as nutjobs and the sheep follow right along. The RINO takeover of our local GOP is the reason I didn't run this year after 18 years, you just get tired of fighting a losing battle.
The GOP is afraid to play hardball at the same time that Obama is running ads that are outright lies and the sheep believe them.
Ok, I'm rambling but I have lots of thoughts on the issue and most of them cause me to remember how disgusted I am. Conservatives have practically lost the GOP, thus the formation of the TEA party.
And since I believe in the TEA party, low taxes, less govt., and am against murdering unborn babies I'm branded as a religious nut who lives out in the woods and owns too many guns.
@ryr8828,,, how many years do you think it will take for the Tea Party to become a viable party that will have an electable candidate in a Presidential election? If ever.
CarlosDJackal
07-21-12, 09:15
Hanging... sign... NOW! :D
http://www.constitutionparty.com/images/VoteForGoode.jpg
Goode/Clymer 2012!
I'm sorry. Up until 2008 I always voted for Virgil Goode. But after I heard his campaign speech and after he ignored my request for clarification on his Anti-(Legal) Immigration Stance; as far as I'm concerned he's a racist POS and after obama would be the worse thing to happen to our country. JM2CW.
@ryr8828,,, how many years do you think it will take for the Tea Party to become a viable party that will have an electable candidate in a Presidential election? If ever.
Probably never. There's a better chance of taking over the Republican party with common sense and force the rinos into our tea party ideals.
@ryr8828,,, how many years do you think it will take for the Tea Party to become a viable party that will have an electable candidate in a Presidential election? If ever.
How many years do you think it will take for the Demoocrats (and Obama and his successors) to bring our country to freedom?
-
I will vote conscience. I will vote for the man who lines up the most with my views.
How many years do you think it will take for the Demoocrats (and Obama and his successors) to bring our country to freedom?
-
Their version of freedom or mine?
Belmont31R
07-21-12, 20:07
Their version of freedom or mine?
Lol I bet their's is a lot closer to fruition than yours/ours.
Look up the "Economic bill of rights". We now have a 2nd bill of rights which is of greater emphasis at the Federal level than the original.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.